Finance Committee on May 28th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

On this, we'll go to Mr. Brison and then Ms. Glover.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

If I can be constructive and intervene in what threatens to become an increasingly personal discussion, I just am not comfortable—and I'm sure a number of the members of the committee are uncomfortable—with thinly veiled personal attacks on one's expertise or another's expertise.

I do believe that Dr. Cohen of the Canadian Psychological Association raised important questions in her testimony. She is an expert in her field. The Canadian Psychological Association represents these professionals in mental health, and they are very concerned. So we're being constructive.

I believe that Ms. Nash's amendment is a sensible one, given the concerns raised by organizations representing mental health professionals in dealing with these issues on an ongoing basis. The questions are what the rationale is for this change and why there is such a lack of clarity around how it would affect the costs of these mental health services. The professionals do not know. That's what they said to us emphatically before committee and in private meetings with members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Go ahead, Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Being that the experts on the application of GST/HST are in fact here in the room, I'd just like to pose this last question to them so that they can clarify for Canadians who are watching: will mental health treatment be subject to GST and HST?

[Carlos Achadinha]

The way the GST/HST legislation is set up, there is an exemption for all services covered by provincial and territorial health care plans. Anything that falls under and is covered by one of those plans has been and will continue to be exempt.

There is also an exemption for the services of various health care professionals: psychologists, doctors, all the major health care professionals. If you are regulated in five or more provinces, the practice is that you're added to this list, so there's an extensive list of all the major health care professionals. The services provided by those health care professionals, if they're in the context of providing a medical service, a medical treatment, have been and will continue to be exempt.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Okay. We will have a vote on amendment NDP-3.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 48 agreed to on division)

(On clause 49)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have amendment NDP-4. Who will be doing that?

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Again, we would just like some clarity into what services will and won't be subject to HST and GST. This amendment would delay the coming into force of the changes in the exemption rules in order to allow time to clarify that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 49 agreed to)

(On clause 50)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have amendment NDP-5.

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, once again it just delays the coming into force of the change to the GST/HST exemption rules in order to clarify what services will be subject to the GST or HST.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 50 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, I do not have another amendment until clause 62. Is there any discussion on clauses 51 to 61 that members want to highlight for me now? Okay.

(Clauses 51 to 61 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 62)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have amendment NDP-6 in the name of Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The NDP supported the introduction of the general preferential tariff regime, and we continue to support it; however, our amendment would require the government to report to Parliament any proposed changes to the list of countries that are subject to the general preferential tariff rate and the reasons for removing any country from that list. The Conservatives have raised the tariffs on thousands of goods from 72 countries in this budget implementation act, and will of course raise the cost on Canadians who are paying for everyday goods by over $300 million.

Our amendment would bring some transparency and accountability to prevent this in the future. If their cost for basic day-to-day goods are going to be increased, Canadians significantly have a right to expect some basic transparency and accountability from their government. That is the proposal contained in this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for that.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 62 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, is there any discussion on clauses 63 to 77?

(Clauses 63 to 77 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 78 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have a new clause, 78.1, with amendments NDP-7 and NDP-8.

Ms. Nash, you can address one or both at the same time if you wish.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'll address both at the same time. I need to ask the officials why this item wasn't included in the list printed in budget 2013. Could the department confirm that the Conservatives neglected to reduce tariffs on hockey helmets? In spite of all the noise they made about cutting tariffs on hockey equipment, they neglected helmets and had to go back and reinsert that.

Thanks to our colleague, Glen Thibeault, who caught this mistake.

It should have been part of budget 2013. Can they say why hockey helmets were not included at that time?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Halley, would you like to respond to that, please?

[Patrick Halley, Chief, Tariffs and Market Acess, International Trade and Finance, Department of Finance]

Sure. I think it was explained in the House that it should have been included initially, so that's in clause 78 now.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'll take that it was an oversight and our NDP colleague caught that.

Specifically with reference to our amendments, what they would do is eliminate the new tax the Conservatives put on iPods. They've raised taxes on iPods and other MP3 players by 6%, and here, with this amendment, the NDP is proposing to save consumers from this Conservative iPod tax.

That is the motion we're proposing, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Ms. Nash dealt with NDP-7 and NDP-8 together. Is there any discussion on this?

Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to remind members that the government heard from the Retail Council of Canada in a Senate study on tariffs, and it was suggested that reducing tariffs is going to lead to some savings for consumers. This is in fact a section that applies because we're testing that theory out. It's a pilot project. Not all sports equipment is covered by this pilot project, but we've inserted a number of things that we feel might help us to deal with that.

As far as an iPod tax is concerned, it is only the NDP who is suggesting that there be any kind of an iPod tax. We all know there are exemptions already in place for iPods, and this doesn't affect that in any way. But I do want to say that if this does produce some fruitful results as a pilot project, we certainly are going to be looking at opening the door further and perhaps looking at further reductions in the future.

It is a pilot project, so we've chosen some specific sporting equipment and baby clothes for that purpose only, but not all sports equipment is covered.