44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 09, 2022
- This bill, known as the Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021, implements certain provisions outlined in the economic and fiscal update presented to Parliament on December 14, 2021, as well as other measures.
The bill has several parts.
In Part 1, amendments are made to the Income Tax Act and Income Tax Regulations. These changes include the introduction of a new refundable tax credit for eligible businesses to cover ventilation expenses related to improving air quality. It also expands the travel component of the northern residents deduction, allowing all northern residents to claim up to $1,200 in eligible travel expenses, even if they haven't received travel assistance from their employer. The School Supplies Tax Credit is also expanded from 15% to 25% and now includes electronic devices used by eligible educators. Additionally, a new refundable tax credit is introduced to return fuel charge proceeds to farming busi
- Yea (234)
- Nay (166)
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:49:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, a couple of the Liberal colleagues today have put out this statistic that 97% of farmers are exempt from the carbon tax. That is completely and utterly false. We know that the vast majority of farmers pay much more in carbon taxes than they would get in any rebate. In Bill C-8, which I am sure my colleague is referring to, the average farm gets about 15% to 20% back on its carbon tax. However, there is no exemption on natural gas and propane, which we are talking about today.
Can my colleague please table with the House the document that states that 97% of farmers are exempt from the carbon tax? I would love to see where the Liberals come up with that number.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.
Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.
I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.
Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.
Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.
Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.
I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.
We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.
We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.
We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.
I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.
I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.
We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.
I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.
What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—
888 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand up and speak to Bill C-47, the Liberals' budget bill. Certainly, I have had an opportunity to speak with my constituents with respect to the concerns that they have about this Liberal legislation. The thing that has been raised the most is that, going into the budget, they were told by the Liberal finance minister that there would be some fiscal restraint. Maybe for the first time in the Liberals' eight years in power, there would be a commitment to fiscal common sense. However, that certainly did not happen in this budget; we now see a $43-billion deficit. If that is the Liberals' definition of fiscal restraint, I would hate to see what happens when they turn on the taps and say that they are going to spend unreservedly.
When it comes to Canadians, the Liberals are now asking every single Canadian family to contribute an additional $4,300 to the Liberal government coffers to pay for their spending. I want Canadians across the country to have a different perspective on what the Liberals are asking them to do. I am asking Canadians to consider themselves shareholders in the corporation of Canada. Every single Canadian is a shareholder in this country. When the Liberals say they are taking on this debt so that Canadians do not have to, it is extremely misleading. The main funder of this corporation of Canada is the Canadian taxpayer. Therefore, if I am the Liberal Minister of Finance and I am asking Canadians to fund our $43-billion deficit spending with an additional $4,300 per family, as the shareholder of that company, the first question I am going to ask is this: “What is my return on investment? What is my ROI on an additional call-out for cash from the Liberal government?”
If the Liberal government has to explain to Canadians what their ROI is on that additional tax grab, it is a pretty tough sell. We Canadians have a $30-billion-plus Infrastructure Bank that has not built a single project. We have chaos at the airports. We cannot get a passport if we want one. People might not be able to get their questions on their tax returns answered by the CRA. The carbon tax is going up, and we are going to have skyrocketing inflation and food prices. We have lost the respect of our most trusted trading partners. We cannot fund our own military and defend ourselves or respond to crises around the world. Other than that, Canadians' investment is well spent with the Liberal government in the corporation of Canada.
How would any common-sense Canadian feel that this has been a good return on their investment? I would say that there is not a single Canadian who would say that the current Liberal government has been a good steward of Canadian tax dollars. I would say there is no government in Canadian history that has spent so much to achieve so little. I do not think there is a Canadian government in history that has spent so much on the bureaucracy and the public service to see it come to a state of such dysfunction. I do not think there is a Canadian government in history that has been so committed to taxing Canadians into submission.
I do not think there is any better example than the Liberals' carbon tax. At a time of 40-year record-high inflation and a struggling economy coming out of COVID and the pandemic, no other government in the world was increasing taxes through a carbon tax. Our number one trading partner, the United States, does not have a carbon tax; the carbon tax is putting us, our farmers, our ranchers, our food producers, our manufacturers and Canadian industry at a stark competitive disadvantage.
What makes it more frustrating for those Canadians who are being asked to contribute more to the Liberals' out-of-control spending is that the Liberal carbon tax has been proven to be a sham. The latest reports confirm that the Liberals have not met a single environmental emissions target they have set for themselves. Now the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what we have pretty much known all along, which is that the carbon tax costs Canadians more than they get back from the Liberals' sham of a rebate. In fact, it is going to cost every Canadian family and certainly every Alberta family about $1,500 a year. What a surprise that Canadians are not better off paying a higher tax. I would ask the Liberal government to show me any tax that has made Canadians better off.
We knew this when the Liberals brought in the carbon tax rebate for farmers that was supposed to make farmers whole. It was going to be revenue-neutral. However, we have now seen the numbers, and farmers get about 15% back in the carbon tax rebate from Bill C-8. This is nothing new.
The Liberals have been telling Canadians for years that they get more money back than they pay in the carbon tax through rebates, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer made it glaringly clear that this is not the case. It is costing Canadians money. Rather than admit their mistake and say that the carbon tax is a scam, the Liberals are doubling down. They increased the carbon tax again on April 1, and on July 1, it will be imposed on Atlantic Canadians: happy Canada Day.
What the NDP-Liberal carbon tax coalition does not understand is that there are very real consequences to these types of decisions. For example, when the carbon tax is tripled by 2030, it will cost an average Canadian farm $150,000 a year in carbon taxes alone. It is going to put the financial viability of Canadian agriculture and agri-food in jeopardy. It makes us uncompetitive. We already had the most expensive harvest in Canadian history last year, and this is only going to add to those input costs.
For the average Canadian, the consequences are very simple. Higher carbon taxes mean higher production costs and higher prices at the grocery store. Every single Canadian is paying the price for the carbon tax coalition, and they are paying for it at the grocery store when they buy bread, pasta, fruit, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs. They are paying for it over and over again.
I had a constituent family with four kids tell me their grocery bill went up $700 a month. I do not know very many Canadian families that could afford that. Again, we are seeing the consequences of that when one out of five Canadian families is skipping meals because they cannot afford groceries. They cannot afford to put food on the table for their families. They are having to make that decision to pay their mortgage and their heat and power bills by skipping a meal.
We had the CEO of the Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto come to the agriculture committee a couple of weeks ago. We were talking about food security. His comment was that their numbers in March quadrupled from what they would normally see in visitors to the food bank. He called the numbers they are seeing “startling” and “horrific”. He has been quoted as saying, “we are in a crisis. The Daily Food Bank and food banks [in Toronto] are at a breaking point”. There are very real consequences when we increase costs and taxes on Canadians and food production. The numbers we are seeing at the food bank are a direct consequence of that.
Canada's food price index is showing that groceries for a family of four are going to go up another $1,000 in 2023. Unfortunately, it is only going to get worse if the Liberal government continues with the policies it is imposing. A recent study that came out last week from Dalhousie University is bracing Canadians for even higher food prices. The study says that, by 2030, the average food price is going to go up 35%. Bread will go up 35%; dairy, 40%; fruit and vegetables, 29%; and meat, 45%. That is what may happen if the Liberals continue on this ideological policy drive that they are on. Increased carbon taxes are increasing production costs, regulation and red tape on transportation and supply chain, which means direct costs to Canadians.
The solution to higher food prices and higher food costs is simple, and one of the steps the Liberals could take is eliminating the carbon tax. It is not meeting any environmental targets that they are setting themselves, and it is certainly causing more pain than anything else. When the carbon tax is tripled, it may cost an average Alberta family $2,200 a year.
In conclusion, I ask the NDP-Liberal carbon tax coalition to reflect on the hurt and the pain they are putting on Canadians. In fact, the NDP used to be the party of Canadian farmers. I wonder why it has lost that support over the years. Maybe they should take some time to reflect on what happened.
We cannot support this budget. As Conservatives, we are going to stand up for Canadian families and affordability, not the ideological policy that is hurting Canadians.
1566 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not know how much I can cover in a minute, but I will say that I find it quite interesting that the Conservatives, through this bill, and I recognize it is a private member's bill, have spent a great deal of time talking about the need to support farmers, yet when Bill C-8 was brought into the House, it took quite a while as a result of Conservative partisanship and Conservative games that were being played. That bill, in particular, helped 24,000 farmers throughout Canada. We talk about the need to assist our farmers throughout the country, but when push came to shove and there was an actual piece of government legislation before the House, it was actually Conservatives who were playing endless games in order to prevent the legislation from moving forward.
There is no doubt that farmers are on the front line of the climate crisis—
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to take part in today's third reading debate on private member's bill, Bill C-234.
As our government has made clear over the course of this debate, ensuring the strength of Canada's agricultural sector is of crucial importance. Canadian agriculture is a cornerstore of rural communities across the country. It feeds and sustains our urban centres and is fundamental to our overall economic performance. Our farmers also help feed the world.
I will tell us that this issue is very close to me personally. My father and mother both grew up on farms and I visited our family farm every summer.
The supply chain and inflationary aftershocks of the global COVID pandemic and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine have underscored the importance of ensuring that Canada's farmers remain competitive and that our agricultural production continues to grow.
Our government is delivering effective support to Canada's farmers to make that happen.
However, contrary to what is being proposed in Bill C‑234, we are doing so in a way that does not negatively impact important objectives such as fighting climate change or ensuring that the tax system treats Canadians fairly and equitably.
An official from the Department of Finance explained how this will work in his testimony at committee stage of private member's Bill C-234. As he explained, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act currently provides upfront relief from the fuel charged to farmers for gasoline and diesel used in eligible farming machinery, such as farm trucks and tractors. He added that the GGPPA also provides relief of 80% of the fuel charged for natural gas and propane used to heat an eligible greenhouse.
He went on to explain that recognizing that many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations, Bill C-8 introduced a refundable tax credit in order to return a portion of fuel charge proceeds to farm businesses operating in the backstop jurisdictions of Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, starting with the 2021-22 fuel charge year. I would note that since this statement was made, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are being added to those backstop jurisdictions.
However, what the Department of Finance official said at the time still applies today. He said, and I quote:
Through the refundable tax credit, the total amount to be returned is generally equal to the estimated fuel charge proceeds from farm use of propane and natural gas in heating and drying activities in backstop provinces. This ensures that all the proceeds collected from this farming activity are returned to farmers. It is estimated that farmers will receive $100 million in the first year, with this amount expected to increase as the price on carbon pollution rises.
He went on to say, and I quote:
In this manner, the credit aims to help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming by providing support to farmers, while also maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions.
This is a different approach than that proposed in private member's Bill C-234. Bill C-234 would directly relieve fuel charges on natural gas and propane used in eligible farming activities and thus would completely remove the price signal intended by the carbon pricing regime.
As he concluded, if fuel charge relief for farmers was extended through Bill C-234, farmers in backstop jurisdictions would receive double the compensation by benefiting from the refundable tax credit included in Bill C-8, while also being almost fully relieved from the fuel charge. Such double compensation would come at the expense of households or other sectors in those provinces. This would not only be unfair to other taxpayers, but it would also undermine our efforts to address climate change, which itself is a grave threat to the viability of our agricultural sector and a key reason why we are taking action to address it.
Letting climate change run unchecked is simply not an option for our government. We know for a fact that farmers across the country are experiencing the impacts of climate change first-hand, like droughts and floods. It is hitting their bottom line, and to their great credit, they are taking action to address it. Farmers have been leading the adoption of climate-friendly practices, like precision agriculture technology and low-till techniques, which could help reduce emissions and save them both time and money.
Our government is taking action to support them. Our recent budget, for example, proposes to provide a further $329.4 million in remaining amortization to triple the size of the agricultural clean technology program. It proposes $150 million for a resilient agricultural landscape program to support carbon sequestration and adaptation and address other environmental co-benefits, with the details of this to be discussed and worked out with provinces and territories.
It also proposes to provide $100 million over six years, starting in 2022-23, to the federal granting councils to support post-secondary research in developing technologies and crop varieties that would allow for net-zero emission agriculture, and it proposes to provide $469.5 million over six years, with $0.5 million in remaining amortization, starting in 2022-23, to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to expand the agricultural climate solutions program's on-farm climate action fund.
Moreover, the budget proposes renewing the Canadian agricultural partnership, which delivers a range of support programs for farmers and agriculture in partnership with both provincial and territorial governments.
Each year, these programs provide $600 million to support agricultural innovation, sustainability, competitiveness and market development. This includes a comprehensive suite of business risk management programs to help Canadian farmers cope with volatile markets and disaster situations, delivering approximately $2 billion of support on average per year. At the same time, as pointed out by the finance official at committee stage, Canada's agricultural sector already receives significant relief under the federal carbon pollution pricing system compared to other sectors.
These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.
Our pollution pricing system simply seeks to recognize that pollution has a price and to encourage cleaner growth and a more sustainable future. The federal government will not keep any direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. Under our plan, any proceeds from the carbon pollution pricing system are returned to the jurisdictions from which they were collected.
Our pollution pricing system is simply about recognizing that pollution has a cost and encouraging cleaner growth and a more sustainable future. Returning these proceeds helps Canadians make more environmentally sustainable consumption choices, but it does not change the incentive to pollute less. With this system, not just farmers but also consumers and businesses have a financial incentive to choose greener options every time they make a purchase or investment decision.
Canada has been a world leader in fighting climate change through pollution pricing. We should not do anything that would undermine this achievement, as Bill C-234 would, for the reasons I have set out here today.
I am thankful for the opportunity to make the government's position clear in this regard.
1206 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the best decisions this member has made was seeing the clock to private members' time today so I have to give him credit for that.
In regard to Bill C-8, the bill he is talking about, almost half of my speech talked about the critiques that were in that and that was to do with the rebate. The rebate falls short. I hate to say it. One can go to any farmer in any province and they will tell us that if one has $1.73 or $1.47 per $1,000 allowable expenses and if one has half a million dollars or a million dollars in allowable expenses, how is a $1,700 cheque going to help out? It does not help out at all.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk at great length about supporting farmers. He said that any measures we are able to come up with we should do expeditiously to provide that support. However, I can not help but reflect on the fact that for Bill C-8, which was specifically intended for and helped 24,000 farmers throughout the country, the Conservative Party and this member put up roadblocks by bringing in various political games to avoid the passage of the bill, a bill that would directly impact and provide supports to farmers.
I am curious if the member can rectify the fact that, although he says it now, that was not what we saw when Bill C-8 was before us, which had support in it for 24,000 farmers.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it a difficult task to follow the leader of the official opposition, but I will do my best to carry on with our message about the NDP opposition day motion, which I also agree does not go far enough. It does not put a lot of the blame on the inflationary crisis we face where most of it belongs, which is on government spending.
We cannot say that CEOs, corporate Canada or global companies are driving inflation when we have a federal government that has put in half a trillion dollars in spending, which is having a significant impact on the prices that Canadians are facing all across the board.
I find it interesting that we see a bit of schizophrenia with our NDP colleagues, where with every opportunity they have to support increased spending and the tripling of the carbon tax, they vote with the government, yet their motion today attempts to try to make life more affordable for Canadians.
In question period yesterday, the leader of the NDP had concerns about rising gas prices, especially in his province of B.C. where fuel has hit $2.40 a litre. That is exactly what Liberal and NDP policy wants to achieve. It wants us to have higher fuel prices. It wants to force us to drive our cars less. I am sure that works in many of my colleagues' urban communities. Some days they can park their cars and take public transit or ride their bikes. My riding is almost 30,000 square kilometres.
Public transit does not exist in my riding. My constituents must drive their car. They must drive long distances to work. They must heat their homes and their barns in -40°C weather in January. These are the facts of life. These are the necessities of life. These are not extravagant choices; they have to do that. In response to that, our Liberal colleagues, supported by the NDP, want to triple the carbon tax.
I am going to focus a little on the agricultural sector and the impact that is having on rural economies and rural Canadians. I would argue that rural Canadians, especially our farmers, producers and ranchers, pay the carbon tax over and over again.
It was interesting to hear my Liberal colleague say that while farmers were price-takers, the carbon tax did not have an impact on the price of food. It is true that they are price-takers. However, when we triple the carbon tax, we triple the price of fuel. We saw the price of fertilizer go up 100% last year. That does not include the 35% tariff on fertilizer from Russia and Belarus. That impacts hauling their grain, hauling their cattle and transportation to the terminal. Every single time they are paying that carbon tax over and over again.
The company or rail company hauling their grain passes that carbon tax on to the consumer. Every time those prices go up on those transportation or commodity services, it impacts the price of food. That is why we have seen the cost of groceries go up more than 10%, the highest rate of inflation in more than 40 years.
Therefore, I understand my NDP colleagues when they say that the CEOs in Canada should pay their fair share. I agree with that. Every Canadian should pay their fair share. The Liberal government has been in power for seven years. If there are loopholes, it should be holding taxpayers accountable for paying their fair share. Obviously, it has not done that. However, to shift the blame from where it lies to other parts of the economy is disingenuous.
An interesting statistic came up yesterday at the agriculture committee, and I want to highlight it. We heard it from my Bloc colleague, who I have a lot of respect for as well. Climate change is real, but to put the price of fighting climate change on the backs of Canadian farmers is not fair. Let us be real here, as my colleague was saying. Let us have an honest conversation about this. GHG intensity in agriculture is about 28% globally. What it is in Canada? It is 8%. We are tenfold better than any other country in the world when it comes to GHG emissions and intensity in the agriculture sector in Canada.
With respect to the fertilizer issue, the Liberal government wants to see a 30% reduction in fertilizer use. As I said, grocery prices have gone up 10%. If the Liberals follow through with this policy, all I can say to Canadian consumers is “you ain't seen nothing yet”. When farmers have to see their yields go down between 30% and 50%, depending on what the commodity is, that means significantly lower yields and significantly higher grocery prices. That has nothing to do with the CEO of Loblaws. That has exactly to do with government policy put forward by the Liberals.
Again, what makes that so frustrating is they are saying to Canadian farmers that they are not part of the solution; they are the problem. Canadian farmers are 50% to 70% more efficient in their fertilizer use than any other country on planet earth. Instead of congratulating them for that and going around the world saying that we are the gold standard and here is where everybody else in the world should go, we are apologizing and dragging our farmers down to where everybody else is. That is the wrong philosophy and certainly the wrong policy.
All that is doing is making our farmers worse off. It is also more harmful to the environment, and food prices will go up. It is a triple whammy. Instead of doing the right thing and being a champion and advocate for Canadian farmers, we are going in the exact opposite direction.
There are other policies the Liberals have put forward that have made the cost of groceries and the cost of food go up, and I really want to focus on this part. I am going to backtrack a little to the carbon tax again. My colleague from the Bloc brought that up. In the agriculture committee, we are talking about Bill C-234, a private member's bill brought forward by the Conservatives to exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax on farms. This is a critical piece of legislation that would ensure our farmers are able to remain competitive on the global stage. However, the Liberals are arguing that we do not need Bill C-234 because farmers get a rebate through Bill C-8.
We now know from Finance Canada officials that the average farmer will get about $800 back a year through that rebate. We also know that farmers pay close to $50,000 a year on average in carbon tax. I asked a representative from Finance Canada how they could argue that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral when they were admitting that the average farmer is getting about $800 to $860 back. His answer was that if we made it revenue-neutral, urban Canadians would have to subsidize that. Okay. He was telling me that rural Canadians were subsidizing the carbon tax and wealth redistribution for urban Canadians. That is what he was telling me.
That is not what the Liberal policy on the carbon tax was. They said it was going to be revenue-neutral and that eight out of 10 families would get more back than they paid. That is baloney. Rural Canadians are suffering and certainly paying significantly more in carbon tax than other Canadians. That is not what the Liberals are selling. Again, it is Liberal policy that is driving inflation and driving up the price of food.
It is going to get worse. Although we had a bit of a win this spring when we got the Liberals to back down on front-of-pack labelling on ground beef and pork, they are still going ahead with front-of-pack labelling on most other products. The cost of that is going to be $1.8 billion to the industry. Who do we think pays for that? I can guarantee that Galen Weston at Loblaws is not covering that cost. I can guarantee that French's ketchup is not covering that cost. They are passing that right on to the consumer.
Again, a Liberal policy that no one asked for and serves very little purpose is going to be passing on $2 billion in costs to the Canadian consumer for no reason. That is not to mention that the United States has already identified this policy as a trade irritant. Therefore, not only are we upsetting Canadian consumers, but we are also upsetting our number one trading partner, which is looking for every excuse possible to fight back against Canadian trade.
In conclusion, I appreciate what my NDP colleague is trying to achieve with this motion, and there are many portions of it that we agree with. Certainly CEOs should pay their fair share and affordable food should be available for every Canadian, but the facts are the facts. Inflation is being driven by ideological, activist policy by the Liberal government. That should be the focus of the House.
1546 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 6:30:07 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
Ottawa
June 9, 2022
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 9th day of June, 2022, at 5:09 p.m.
Yours sincerely,
Ian McCowan
Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor
The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures—Chapter 5
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 5:15:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are a number of good measures in Bill C-19, and this tax credit is certainly one of them. It is important, and that is why we will be supporting Bill C‑19.
However, I would ask the government to implement this tax credit more quickly than the one they gave to teachers in last fall's budget. It is still not in effect because Bill C-8 is still before the Senate. Normally, when a bill is winding its way through Parliament, tax credits can be put in place more quickly. It appears that because the opposition parties are against Bill C‑8, they are being blamed for not granting this tax credit, which several teachers have asked me about.
I would therefore ask that the tax credit to help seniors stay in their homes be implemented more quickly than the tax credit for teachers.
I do not know if I have enough time to respond, but I would add that the situation in the long-term care facilities was carnage, a real disaster. The long-term care facilities are the poor cousin of Quebec's health care system, which brings to mind the chronic underfunding of the health care system. Obviously this goes back to the years of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin who, in order to balance Ottawa's budget, massively cut transfers to Quebec and the provinces. The situation has never been rectified since, and we expect Ottawa to send massive transfers to the provinces to respect each one's ability to pay.
267 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are now at third reading of this omnibus bill.
In fact, there are all kinds of statutes stuffed into Bill C-19, with topics ranging from strip searches to justice in space. That might be helpful for addressing all the mischief Brad Spitfire could get up to, but it does not belong in a budget implementation bill. This is a half-baked omnibus bill. It is no wonder it is full of problems.
To start, the paper copy we were given was missing more than 20 pages. We were working with the wrong version for far too long. That is unacceptable, and it seriously undermines the government's credibility and our trust in it.
A lot of changes were made to this bill at the Standing Committee on Finance, and I applaud the work we did. However, it is so big that there was no way the committee could do an in-depth study of the entire bill.
I will have to criticize the government's approach once again. The government promised that it would not introduce any more omnibus bills, but only the willfully naive are buying Liberal promises these days.
Regarding our study, I am sincerely grateful for the help we got from the other House of Commons standing committees: Justice and Human Rights, Citizenship and Immigration, International Trade, and Industry and Technology. Let me add an honourable mention for the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and our superhero there, the member for Thérèse‑De Blainville.
Bill C‑19 put forward a lot of changes to the employment insurance system, including the EI board of appeal. The government did not do its job properly. It did not consider the consultations and the needs expressed by stakeholders, such as unions. It is rare for the employer and the union to agree that something like this was poorly done. The member for Thérèse‑De Blainville was very efficient at bringing all those people together with the finance committee and the human resources committee so parliamentarians could hear from them. Their message was clear. Better to strike the issue from the bill altogether rather than pass flawed measures.
We in the Bloc Québécois prepared for both eventualities. We introduced several amendments and asked that the section be deleted. In committee, I pressed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to lobby his government to have it removed.
I tabled a motion to that effect. My colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville got the human resources committee to adopt a unanimous motion to delete it. The Conservative and NDP members also requested the same thing. The government listened to reason. It backed down and committed to tabling something a little better in the fall.
This is what we MPs are here for. It is what the House and the parliamentary committees are here for as well. We study government bills. We review them with the people they would affect. If the bill is good, we support it. If it is bad, we reject it. We work tirelessly to improve the bills.
We know the government is tired and worn out. The pandemic took its toll on us all. The Prime Minister gave an election a shot in the fall. That tired out his government, which is still a minority. We had the blockades in the winter, followed by the war in Ukraine, which has been going on for over 100 days. That has kept everyone busy.
The Prime Minister is overwhelmed and exhausted. The Minister of Finance is playing the roles of both prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, especially with respect to the war. All the work she is doing is very honourable. The problem is that she is caught up in all these fast-moving issues, so she no longer has enough time to do her job properly as finance minister.
We saw that with her budget. We saw that with the crisis facing specialized businesses that convert trucks into ambulances, armoured vans and other specialty trucks. They are affected by the semiconductor shortage, which has shut down truck manufacturers in the United States. This input shortage is hitting our businesses hard. We cannot afford to lose these good niche jobs.
In December, the finance minister promised that the shortage was over. We supported Bill C‑8 based on her assurances. She had agreed to provide us with the statistics showing that things were getting better. We believed the Liberals' promises, but we never got the statistics, and the situation of these businesses is getting worse and worse as the weeks go by. We have been pressing the minister on this issue since January, but we have still heard nothing.
The only response we received came in her fall economic update, when she committed to subsidizing semiconductor manufacturers. However, this is a far more complex market, and she has completely missed the mark. We were unable to secure a meeting with her to discuss this subject. We were also unable to get her to come to committee to talk about inflation, even though we officially invited her in January to come testify sometime before May 31. It is now June 8, and we have still heard nothing.
We know that the Minister of Finance is very busy with the war and all of the other files she manages for the Prime Minister. The only problem is that that does not leave her any time to take care of finance. The associate ministers and parliamentary secretaries have not been delegated to follow up on this or other files. It is a serious problem that will have harmful consequences for our economy.
I have another example. In Bill C‑19, the budget implementation bill, the government presents the details of its luxury tax. It is 170 pages long. We agree in principle that people who buy luxury cars, planes or boats should pay a luxury tax. That is one way to redistribute wealth. However, the tax needs to be well constructed and the situation properly assessed.
For example, this tax will have serious repercussions on the entire economy and on jobs related to the use of personal boats. When I asked the Department of Finance to show us its impact studies for this new tax, the departmental officials told me that they had not done any studies. There is nothing. This has a real boys‑in‑short‑pants feel about it. Santa Banana could have done a better job of this.
What we have here is an ideological tax. It is all about the principle, and no one cares about how it will be implemented. In any case, the minister does not have time to waste on that.
This tax will be disastrous for the aerospace industry, which has been in a complete panic for almost a year now, not because the wealthy will no longer be able to afford to buy private jets, but because the tax will apply to companies and exports, even though it is not supposed to.
This whole thing is a big mess. The government gave the Department of Finance carte blanche, and it did not do its job properly. It did not feel like doing it, so it did a poor job. Because the Minister of Finance is busy dealing with the situation in Ukraine, the government is letting this slide. That is unacceptable. This measure is so poorly thought out that unions and employers, along with some members of the House, have banded together to warn us about how serious this situation is.
Canada is already the only country that has an aerospace industry but no industry strategy, not even for government procurement. Now the government is imposing poorly designed taxes that are harmful to the industry without even doing an impact study. That undermines Canada's credibility with the industry.
I would remind members that greater Montreal is the third-largest aerospace hub on the planet. Such a high value-added sector helps drive our economy. Anyone in the world would be very careful to preserve such a cluster—anyone, that is, but Ottawa. Is this all because the industry is in Quebec? That is unacceptable, and it reminds us of the repercussions of being under our neighbour's thumb.
Working with the unions and employers, we submitted several amendments to correct the poorly drafted tax measure. For instance, one amendment stated that the tax must not apply to exported aircraft. Another would have excluded businesses from the tax, which is how it is supposed to work. The Liberals and NDP voted against all those amendments. Yes, the NDP voted against what the unions were calling for. Why? It is because of their deal with the Liberals and their promise of unwavering support, to the point of compromising their principles.
The Conservatives voted with the unions on the luxury tax in Bill C-19, and the NDP and the Liberals voted against the unions. They were so quick to compromise their principles for a promise that benefits only the party that wanted it in the first place.
All of this will undermine our important aerospace industry and its unionized, well-paying jobs. This is all because the tax is ill-conceived and fails to meet its objective of taxing people who purchase luxury vehicles. Instead, the bill will tax airplane and helicopter manufacturers on aircraft that they export, over 90% of their output, or sell to businesses. This comes at a time when the industry is barely recovering from being hard hit by the pandemic. This is all because we have a finance minister who is no longer doing her job, since she is doing the Prime Minister's job and nothing is delegated. This is all because the government is not putting more effort into supporting and developing our economy.
In a normal democracy, a government like that would be overturned and replaced, but not in Canada. This government is supported by a party that is afraid of losing seats and is facing an opposition that is torn apart by extreme and polarizing ideologies. This is the price of following our neighbour's lead. It has little concern for our economic issues and has its own fish to fry.
With respect to the problems that the ill-conceived luxury tax will cause for the aerospace industry, I spoke numerous times with the finance minister, members of her team, her parliamentary secretary, her department and several other government members. That accomplished next to nothing. All we were able to get passed was an amendment that allows the government to delay implementation until after September at its discretion.
In addition, we had to wait until the report stage. My colleague from Saint-Jean and I introduced the amendment, as did the member for Elmwood—Transcona. This is the last glimmer of hope. If the government can take its head out of the sand and does its homework, we are offering it the opportunity to not implement the tax and to come back with a better bill in the fall. I urge the government to take us up on our offer.
The government is proposing a vast array of legislative changes in this mammoth bill. It has cut corners and done a poor job. The government is patting itself on the back for holding lots of consultations on everything. The only problem is that it is not taking the feedback into account. The Liberals' idea of democracy is letting everyone talk without listening to a word they say.
Luckily, we got the government to backtrack on its ill-conceived employment insurance amendment. We told it to go back and do its homework and listen to stakeholders. Unfortunately, we did not get the government to backtrack on its new tax that is 170 pages of poorly written text, but we did get one amendment passed that will create a window for changes in the fall. That will depend on whether the government sees fit though. I am very worried, as are the industry and union members. The government has not seen fit for quite some time now.
We managed to fix another of the government's egregious errors on another subject entirely in Bill C‑19. Australia took its dispute with Canada over an excise tax on wine to the World Trade Organization. Obviously, it was about wine made from grapes. However, because wine is not just grape wine to Ottawa, the tax applies to many other products too. In committee, we heard from cider and mead producers. The tax would have really hurt them and undermined a rapidly growing sector. We worked with them to propose an amendment that would exempt them from the tax. I think we made some important progress that will enable these passionate people to keep improving their quality products so that we can enjoy the fruits of their labour. I think we deserve congratulations.
More generally, let me say that I am very proud of every member of the Standing Committee on Finance. We spent many hours working constructively and collaboratively. From my perspective, we engaged in successful dialogue and made progress. I am sincerely grateful to every member of the committee, including its chair and the parliamentary secretary. I believe we made substantial improvements to Bill C‑19, and that is down to how well we worked together.
I also want to commend the work done by the other committees that studied parts of Bill C-19. I thank them for their insights. Lastly, I want to once again commend the hard work of my esteemed colleague and friend from Thérèse-De Blainville, who helped force the government to commit to redoing its homework on EI. I salute her for that.
Despite all my criticisms, Bill C-19 does include many good measures. Even though the government introduced a mammoth bill, even though it cut corners, even though we were not able to improve the bill as much as we would have liked, the fact remains that, when we weigh it all out, there are more pluses than minuses for the Quebec economy. That is why we decided to support the bill.
2421 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 1:25:32 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe North.
We are talking about an affordability crisis in the House today. I am very confident that I am not the only member of the House who is getting dozens and dozens of calls and emails every single day from constituents who are very concerned about their ability to put food on the table, put fuel in their cars, heat their homes and put their kids in the activities they enjoy the most. What we are talking about here in our opposition day motion is reducing taxes to make life more affordable for Canadians by eliminating the GST on fuel and the carbon tax.
What I am hearing is somewhat unbelievable. The argument from the Liberals and the NDP is that somehow eliminating a point-of-sale tax does not put more money in the pockets of Canadians. I am not sure how one can even argue that. In fact, their argument against this is that retailers are going to collude to ensure that savings are not passed on to Canadians. I can say from experience that in Alberta, where the provincial government has removed the provincial sales tax on fuel, fuel is about 20¢ cheaper than anywhere else in Canada. Albertans are benefiting from a government that has seen the difficulties Canadians are facing, has taken action to address them and has passed savings directly to Canadians.
What I am hearing from my constituents, after two years of the pandemic, is that they are exhausted; they are tired. They want to get life back to normal. While they are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, that the pandemic is all but over and that businesses are opening back up, they see the affordability crisis, where fuel prices are exorbitant, grocery prices are going up and housing prices are going up. A lot of this has to fall at the feet of the Liberal government.
I know the Liberals like to say this is a global issue and that the war in Ukraine with Putin is causing prices to increase. However, I have been in the House pretty much every day and I do not ever recall Vladimir Putin sitting across the way and voting in favour of a carbon tax. I do not recall Vladimir Putin putting forward legislation or a bill to increase the carbon tax on April 1. Maybe I missed that. I am not sure if my colleagues around the House can confirm that Vladimir Putin is the reason the carbon tax went up 25% on April 1, despite an affordability crisis around the world and a war in Ukraine. I am not sure how we put this all at the feet of Vladimir Putin.
Instead of the government offering relief to Canadians when they need it most, the Prime Minister is travelling around the world with no mask in sight, and here at home he is punishing Canadians over and over again with his draconian mandates and travel restrictions, which are not in place anywhere else around the world. That really seems to be the modus operandi of the Liberal government. It is going to punish Canadians at home and do something completely different around the world.
A good example of that is the fertilizer tariff. My colleague across the way does not seem to think that this is a problem and thinks this is a way of punishing Russia. I would invite my Liberal colleagues talk to any farmer, especially in eastern Canada, and ask them if the fertilizer tariff is hurting Vladimir Putin. The only people this fertilizer tariff of 35% is punishing are Canadian farmers. Vladimir Putin, once again, is not paying this tariff; Canadian farmers are paying this tariff. Even before the war in Ukraine, fertilizer prices in many parts of the country were more than double what they were the year before, as a result, in many cases, of the carbon tax. Do members know what makes fertilizer? It is natural gas. Carbon taxes put on natural gas cause prices to increase.
Canadian farmers are being punished and we have offered solutions. We have asked the Liberal government to provide an exemption on fertilizers purchased before March 2, before Russia invaded Ukraine. The Liberals said no. We then asked them if they would offer compensation to farmers who have had to pay an exorbitant price for that tariff. Again, the Liberals said no.
Let me put this in perspective. Canada is the only G7 country putting a tariff on Russian fertilizer, meaning that Canadian farmers are now at a severe competitive disadvantage to our compatriots around the world. They are paying an exorbitantly high carbon tax and they are paying a tariff on fertilizer.
At the same time, we are in the midst of a global food crisis. Food insecurity is probably the number one priority on earth and we are the only country on earth that is increasing taxes and putting a tariff on fertilizer. How does that make us competitive? How does that give us the ability to carry the burden of helping in a global food crisis, which our farmers absolutely want to do? They want to be there to help, but the Liberal government is doing everything possible to ensure that we cannot do that and do not meet our potential.
Despite the Conservatives offering these solutions, the Liberals carry on with this activist agenda, let us say, or the theatrics they are putting on that this is somehow punishing Putin when it is only punishing Canadian farmers. However, it is not just Canadians farmers who are going to feel the impact of this. If Canadian farmers have to reduce their use of fertilizer simply because they cannot afford it, yields are going to go down and the prices of commodities are going to go up. We have already seen the price of groceries go up. In many cases they are up 15%, depending on the product. This is only going to get worse. We are not only talking about countries that have been relying on Ukrainian commodities such as barley, wheat and sunflower oil; this is going to be felt here at home.
My NDP colleagues have been talking about food insecurity here at home in Canada. A lot of that is the result of Liberal policies. The Liberals are the ones increasing the cost of those groceries by increasing the carbon tax, putting a tariff on fertilizer and having additional red tape, making it very difficult for our farmers to do the job they do best and better than anyone else in the world. We are the only country with a government, in a food security crisis, that is asking Canadian consumers to pay more. It is the only government asking farmers to pay more. How does this make any sense whatsoever?
I want to get to another part of our opposition day motion. I talked about fertilizer, but I also want to talk about the carbon tax.
The carbon tax is something for which the Conservatives have offered a solution. My colleague from Huron—Bruce offered a private member's bill that would eliminate the carbon tax on farm fuels, Bill C-234. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in assessing the carbon tax, has said a few things that I think are very enlightening: The carbon tax is not revenue-neutral, the carbon tax increases inflation and the carbon tax does not reduce emissions. This is everything the Liberals are saying the carbon tax will accomplish, and the study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer has refuted all of those claims. Why are we charging this carbon tax on our Canadian farmers? We put forward a solution in Bill C-234 to eliminate the carbon tax from farm fuels.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has done the math. In the first year of the carbon tax, Canadian farmers paid on average about $14,000 a year. With the increase on April 1, that goes to $45,000 per average farmer. The Liberals are going to say there is a carbon tax rebate and eight out of 10 families make more off the carbon tax. Again, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an arm's-length officer of the House, has said that is not the case. In Bill C-8, with the carbon tax rebate, farmers get $1.70 for every $1,000 of eligible expenses. They are getting pennies on the dollar for what they are contributing to the carbon tax. Farmers are price-takers. They cannot afford to carry the burden of the carbon tax when we are asking them to improve yields and their efficiency. It does not make sense.
At a time when we are talking about global food security, we also need to talk about affordability. Our farmers, producers and manufacturers need to be able to do what they do and do it efficiently. I have talked about the carbon tax and the fertilizer price, but there is another issue where the Liberals continue to throw on red tape and obstacles, which is going to be coming out in the next little while. It is front-of-package labelling. That is a direct attack on beef and pork producers in Canada. The United States has already identified this as a trade irritant that will impact our beef exports and increase grocery costs here at home, making things even more unaffordable for Canadians.
In conclusion, our motion is very prudent. It would ensure that we address the affordability crisis facing Canadians, and, most importantly, help our farmers, producers and ranchers, who are doing all they can to address a global food security crisis, ensure that groceries are affordable for all Canadians.
1637 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 11:17:24 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, I want to call into question my colleague's comments that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. We know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that this is not true, and I want to give the hon. member an example. Through Bill C-8, Canadian farmers are getting $1.70 for every $1,000 of eligible expenses as part of their carbon tax rebate. Some of them are paying more than $19,000 a month right now to run their machinery during seeding. They are getting pennies on the dollar for what they are paying in carbon tax.
Would my colleague not agree that this is not revenue-neutral?
112 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, these are the greatest hits from the Conservative choir: obstructing us at Bill C-8 and trying to delay the work on behalf of Canadians, while we are making sure that we get the work done on behalf of the people of Canada. Once again, the Conservatives proposed an amendment at second reading that would even prevent scrutiny of the bill, so I do not know which the member wants: scrutiny or no scrutiny. His own people said not to look at the bill.
We need Bill C-19 passed. That is why we are here today. We will get the work done on behalf of Canadians.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I find it mind-boggling and ironic that the minister talks about Conservatives bringing in U.S. problems, when the current government's whole modus operandi is to import U.S. culture wars.
I want to give an example of why it is so important that we continue debate. We heard the exact same response from the government over Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and the supplementary estimates (C), where there was $4 billion in Bill C-8 and Bill C-10 for rapid testing, and then a duplicate $4 billion in the supplementary estimates (C) for rapid testing.
We just found out today that the government is sitting on hundreds and hundreds, if not billions, of rapid tests unused, warehoused. This is the reason we need debate on this and other issues, so we do not have a repeat of this incompetence where the government is spending billions of dollars for items that are not even used.
Would the minister perhaps comment on why he wishes to stop any oversight of taxpayer spending and the government's incompetence?
182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 1:17:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, that is not a problem. I will not use things that excite the members, when they are unable to control their emotions in this House. I will move on to the rest of the point, because I clearly upset the members opposite.
What I will speak about is simply the fact that the Conservatives have not based policy decisions in this House on experts, on science or on the testimony we heard at the health committee, when I was a member of that committee. We stand here today and members opposite talk about listening to the science. Time and again we heard experts. Our chief public health officer, Dr. Tam, was personally attacked by Conservatives when they disagreed with her expertise.
I find it a bit rich to stand in this place and to hear the Conservatives say, “Bring out the experts; bring out the testimony.” When we do that, when we table that information, when we have witnesses at committee, when we have reports and when we have that expert testimony, the Conservatives make personal attacks against our chief public health officer. I notice that the heckles went silent, because the Conservative members know it is true, that there are those on their benches who made personal attacks against public health officials who disagreed with them.
In addition to that, we talk about the mandates or any protections across the country throughout the pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, we constantly said that there is no silver bullet and that vaccines are the safest, most effective way for us to get through this pandemic, but there are also layers of protection, and that is crucially important. Those layers of protection are going to help prevent people from getting severely ill and clogging up our emergency rooms and hospitals, and that is what the Conservatives do not understand.
There are layers of protection, not only to protect the most vulnerable, but to protect businesses by not having to enter lockdowns. If we remove every layer of protection throughout this pandemic and businesses have to close, where would the Conservatives be to defend and support those businesses? I know Conservatives did not support them when we moved measures in the budget and in Bill C-8. They voted against the supports those businesses needed.
We put in place layers of protection to help ensure, as the pandemic unfortunately is not over and COVID is still around, that we protect society, protect individuals, protect businesses, and protect our health care workers and our health care system. These are the very people those members call heroes and then attack at committee and try to discredit on social media.
I find that, while the Conservatives might try to position or package some of their motion to act like they are on the side of people, throughout this pandemic they have flip-flopped consistently whenever they felt the political mood suited them.
I turn to some of the comments I heard in this place earlier that accused the government of simply trying to punish people who have differences of opinion or who want the freedom to have a different view on things. I find this incredibly rich, considering what we all saw last night. Among the Conservative benches, they do not have the freedom to listen to science, and they do not have the freedom to speak out and have their own opinions. I heard heckles yesterday when members of our side voted in a free vote. The Conservatives criticized our members for having free votes, yet yesterday the member for Abbotsford rightly pointed out the dangers the member for Carleton was spreading about our democracy and the independence of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. What happened to the member for Abbotsford? He got the boot.
When it comes to Conservatives, the only freedom of choice they have is to listen to whatever leader happens to be running the show at the time. Therefore, it is really hard to take the Conservatives seriously when they talk about mandates, the health and safety of Canadians, and freedoms, when the Conservative benches do not even have freedom of opinion or freedom of speech. Frankly, the member for Abbotsford spoke truth to power, and he got booted to the backbench.
It is really hard to sit here and listen to Conservatives try to defend the health and safety of Canadians when they themselves are not open to listening to experts and scientists or understanding the layers of protection in place to help keep Canadians safe, keep businesses open and keep travel available. They speak about restrictions around the world, but Canadians going even to the U.S. still require testing. There are protections there. There is nothing wrong with the Canadian government doing everything in our power to ensure that there are no lockdowns in this country, that businesses can stay open, that Canadians can remain safe and that our health care heroes can have the ability to keep our health care system functioning well.
The key here is that, if we truly believe in freedom and supporting Canadians across this country, then we should not be listening to the Conservatives, who block freedom of speech and ignore when their own members speak truth to power.
882 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion by my hon. colleague. There is going to be an opportunity to debate the Standing Orders. It will take place in June. It is essential that members take part in that debate. I, myself, always endeavour to speak extemporaneously because I do think something gets lost in prepared remarks, but that is a conversation for all members to have, to be able to reflect upon what rules best serve this place.
I share the member's frustration. My preference would be to work with all parties to be able to accommodate a calendar where we have fair and reasonable debate, but it has become clear, and it was over months and months with Bill C-8 when there was absolutely no progress made, and nothing offered to even get any progress, none whatsoever.
In terms of this bill, the reality is that Canadian artists and Canadian cultural producers, the people who tell the story of this country, are demanding action. It is time to move forward. There has been an enormous study of this issue. There is going to be an opportunity to move to committee to study the issue further, and of course it is going to come back to the House yet again.
Let us move forward. Our artists and our creators deserve that.
222 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the point the member made. It is passing strange to me that the Conservatives say that they are upset they do not have enough time to speak, yet they move concurrence motions, which block their ability to speak. They did this on Bill C-11 in this Parliament when they cut three hours of debate time and stopped their own members from being able to speak. We have seen this obstruction happening on every level.
This bill, in its previous iteration, had 28 days at committee to hear witness testimony. It had six days previously and four days now. Frankly, based on the experience with Bill C-8, we would have been here for the next four years for them to still have their comments, to stand up and say the things they want to say.
The reality is that we have to move forward. They do not have the ability as one party to obstruct this place and block it from doing its work. It is essential that we move forward.
There will be an opportunity at committee. There will be an opportunity when it comes back to the House again. There were all the opportunities that existed before, and there are still opportunities at committee and when it comes back to the House for a further reading in the future. There is more than enough time to continue having these conversations.
239 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
