Evidence of meeting #140 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Well, I expect there to be a ruling on this, and I just want to say that I very much sympathize with the sentiments of my Conservative colleagues, but I would just point out that the NDP, as a condition of support for the government, has proposed that we bring in dental care for nine million Canadians who have the lowest incomes. You have to make under $70,000 of net family income, and you can't have any dental insurance. These are the poorest people in the country. These are people making $15,000 or $20,000 a year, such as seniors who are living on fixed incomes, who can't get their teeth fixed. This plan would allow these people to go to the dentist instead of paying out of pocket, and to get better care, by the way, because they don't have to get their teeth pulled.
The Conservatives either don't care that these people get any oral health care at all or they insist on driving these poorest, most marginalized people to the dentist to pay out of pocket for what is essentially primary health care. The NDP plan, which we've worked on in concert with my Liberal colleagues to bring in, would save these people real dollars, as well as improve their health care, yet the Conservatives oppose it. They voted against it, and they oppose it. I'm sitting here, listening to a claim that the Conservatives care about people's month-to-month living costs and people freezing in winter. What about seniors writhing in agonizing pain and having to spend money for that?
I just think it has to go on the record that if there's any virtue in politics in being consistent, I think this is a situation that calls out for that. I'd be happy to have the Conservatives prove me wrong in this by supporting dental care and coming out and saying they're going to vote for it, and the same thing with pharmacare. I just can't let a statement by Conservatives that claims to care about poor people in this country stand on the record as a justification for a vote when they take positions antithetical to that in the next breath.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Davies.
Now I have MP Ste-Marie. Then I have to go to my ruling.
MP Ste-Marie.
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand that you are going to make a ruling on the amendment. So I'll listen to your decision and, if appropriate, I can then comment.
I'd like to point out one thing, though, about the motion we have here. If I'm not mistaken, the NDP made the same proposal at an opposition day last November, and the Conservatives opposed it. So, I'm having trouble following the logic.
Whatever the case, I'll listen to your decision, Mr. Chair.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you for that, MP Ste-Marie.
I'll advise you that you will not be able to speak after my ruling, as you know.
My ruling is this: Bill C-59 amends several acts, including the Excise Tax Act. The amendment seeks to amend schedule VI of the act to add a new part XI to exclude home heating fuel from taxation. This is a new scheme not envisioned in the bill that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
Therefore, for the above-stated reason, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Mr. Chair, I'd like to challenge your ruling. I find it very inconsiderate of Canadians who are paying a tax on a tax.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
1:50 p.m.
The Clerk
The question is this: Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
The amendment is inadmissible.
Members, now we have clauses 72 to 95. There are no amendments for these clauses that I know of. I'm looking to see if members are open to grouping those.
1:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
(Clauses 72 to 95 inclusive agreed to on division)
We are now going to the new clause 95.1. This is CPC-3.
I'll look to MP Lawrence.
April 30th, 2024 / 1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you. This is an opportunity, once again, to do what is right by Canadians.
I'll say at the outset that I do expect a ruling that you'll find this out of order, but I would hope that we would listen to our constituents and that we would overturn the chair's eventual ruling.
This amendment would allow us to undo the damage going forward with respect to the carbon tax. We wish that we could give the carbon tax relief retroactively and that the last nine years had just been a bad nightmare, but, unfortunately, it is the reality that we live in.
We live, unfortunately, in a country where GDP per capita is now in the sixth quarter of negativity, meaning that every Canadian on average has gotten poorer over the last year and a half. In fact, since 2018, we have seen a zero increase in GDP per capita. We are facing a high rate of inflation. It's still outside the range, and many economists are now predicting that this last mile of reducing inflation will be the hardest, in Canada particularly. We've had the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Rogers, say that this is a made-in-Canada issue, particularly with respect to productivity.
Every policy decision that I would hope that any government would make, given the fact that productivity is a crisis of standard of living.... When standards of living decline, it's the most vulnerable who often get hurt the most, and this will be the case here.
We're looking at a tax that is no doubt reducing our productivity, not only domestically, where we've seen the inflationary impact and the cost of everything going up, but also in terms of affecting our international competitiveness.
Of course, the United States of America doesn't have a carbon tax, and we are competing every day against American businesses. Mexico has a very tiny carbon tax that barely needs mentioning. The companies in Mexico and the United States have a competitive advantage, and they are our most direct competitors.
In the PRC, they do not have a carbon tax either. Major manufacturing companies, our closest neighbours and many of our peer nations do not have a carbon tax, which puts Canadian businesses at a disadvantage. When we look at the inflationary impact of the carbon tax and the economic impact, most importantly, as I said earlier, it is the most vulnerable who are being hurt the most by the carbon tax.
Even NDP leader Jagmeet Singh commented about the difficult parts of the carbon tax. They wouldn't come out and completely say that they weren't supporting it, but he did comment negatively about aspects of the carbon tax. Maybe Don will share with us that the NDP are going to be against the consumer-faced carbon tax. This would be an opportunity for the NDP to take a stand and start separating themselves from their Liberal coalition partner. We know it's just a matter of time as they see the sinking ship going down.
This is an opportunity for everyone to do what's right for their constituents by reducing inflation, reducing the cost of living and helping our most vulnerable. Let's axe the tax.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Lawrence. I'll now give my ruling.
Bill C-59 amends several acts. The amendment seeks to amend the bill by repealing the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which is not amended by the bill. This is a new scheme not envisioned in the bill that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
Therefore, for the above-stated reason, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Mr. Chair, it pains me to do this, because you know how much I normally always respect your decisions—
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I'm going to have to challenge your ruling in this case.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, we are going to suspend now.
We'll be back at 3:30 in this room.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're back, everyone.
We are now at clauses 96 to 136. There are no amendments to these clauses, so I'm just looking around to see if we can group these.
3:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I see a yes, thumbs-up.
(Clauses 96 to 136 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 137)
BQ-1 is on clause 137.
MP Ste-Marie, would you like to move the amendment?
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair. I would indeed like to move amendment BQ-1.
Several organizations and orders representing professionals in the category of those offering therapeutic services have approached us and come before the committee to tell us about the difficulty they are experiencing, particularly in Quebec, with regard to the harmonization of legislation. According to them and their lawyers, the current wording of the bill means that professionals who offer therapeutic counselling services would not have access to the exemption—
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're going to suspend for a moment.
We are back.
I apologize for that, MP Ste-Marie. The interpreters were asking about your not having a headset, so they couldn't do their job, but are you using a mic that's approved by the House?