Finance Committee on May 29th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Merci, MP Ste-Marie.

Thank you for that, Monsieur Roger. You left no stone unturned.

We are now going to the NDP and MP Blaikie for his 15 minutes.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Ste-Marie, I heard the king was here yesterday, but, since we weren't here, the “little prince” said he might be back another day.

For those of you who don't know, there is a little French song about a petit prince, and they talk about coming to see somebody who is not there, and the little prince suggests coming back another day of the week.

I think it's enough to participate briefly in this exercise to know that this isn't a great legislative process. I'll say just that much and then try to make the best of the time that I have.

I'll speak first to the government amendments. I think they're sensible. I think they're meant to have the legislation reflect not only the intention of the government but also the agreement that the government reached with the provinces in respect of an increase to the Canada health transfer, and I think we would not be doing our job well if we were to consent to unilateral changes in funding, even if that's a funding increase. I think that when we're talking about the terms and conditions of the Canada health transfer, we need to have an agreement between the federal and the provincial governments in order to back that up.

I would say, and I have said before at this table, that it really was remiss of the government not to have included these coordinating amendments in the first place. I certainly hope that the finance department has learned a lesson and in future will ensure that, if it's offering cash in more than one bill for the same agreement with the provinces, it has coordinated the legislation sufficiently to not run the risk of doubling the cash amount or otherwise changing it.

In the same spirit, the amendments that have been presented by the Conservative Party in respect of the equalization formula are not something that I would be prepared to support. Again, if we're going to make changes, and as I understand this amendment—of course, we don't have time for discussion or for debate—it would give a province that had a referendum the unilateral right to try to trigger a renegotiation of the terms and conditions of equalization. That is something about which, I suspect, other provinces would have something to say, so I don't think it's becoming of the finance committee of the House of Commons to decide that it's appropriate, without any real discussion or consultation, to change the way in which provinces would go about initiating a conversation about the equalization formula. For parties that are serious about honouring the rights of provinces, I think that kind of discussion and agreement is required. Because there has been no such discussion and there has been no such agreement, I don't think it's appropriate for this committee to decide to make a change like that on a unilateral basis.

There are some amendments proposed for the Bank Act. I believe these amendments are amendments that we've seen already in this Parliament as a private member's bill. The New Democratic critic on that bill, Randall Garrison, did some good work, and we have had a debate already. New Democrats had a position on those amendments at that time in the House, and nothing has changed in that regard here at the finance committee.

I want to talk a bit about some of the excise tax amendments. Canadians who have been following this file will know that New Democrats have opposed the automatic escalator. We don't think it's a good idea, and a big part of that is the role of Parliament and the unpredictability of inflation rates, and I think we've seen that. We've also seen that as inflation goes up, it can have a real negative impact on the core business of certain companies that are subject to the excise tax. That's the position on the automatic escalator.

The thing is, these amendments, as a package, go a lot further than that. They actually return the excise tax to 2017 or 2018 levels from before the automatic escalator was put in place. We support not having an increase in the excise tax this year, but that's different from reducing the excise tax. We also haven't said that we're opposed to reasonable excise tax increases in the future. We just think they should be voted by Parliament. The package on the excise tax would substantially lower the excise tax. It's not just a matter of keeping it at zero. It would actually go back to, I think, 2017 levels, which would involve a substantial rebate, as I understand it, of the excise tax. We just had a lecture on making tax policy retroactively. I think this falls along the same lines.

Interestingly, this substantially changes the excise tax position of the government, whereas the other changes that were referred to earlier have to do with digital payment infrastructure. This is why I'm comfortable supporting this legislative change.

I don't think what's going on here is an egregious example of retroactive legislation. It seems to me, and we've heard this to some extent around the table, that the government has had a pretty consistent position over the last 20 or 30 years in respect of this tax. It has collected the tax. It's not a matter of going back and taking a tax. The government implemented a tax, and it has been assessing and collecting that tax. It's a tax on big banks, which have made tons of money over just the last couple of years, let alone over the 20 to 30 years that this tax has been in place.

The amount of revenue generated by that tax is not an incredible amount. I've heard some people use that as an argument to say that it should be no problem for the government to give it back. However, when you compare it to the profits that the banks make, it's a good question as to why we think taxpayers would remit that money back to the biggest banks in Canada when the government has had a consistent position and has been collecting the tax.

I get that big banks want a rebate on the tax. However, when we heard from the person from their organization, I didn't hear a compelling reason for why we would rebate big banks and not continue doing business as it has been done for the last 20 or 30 years.

It's an odd thing. We have a claim that is retroactive, but in this case the retroactivity simply affirms the status quo, and up to some time within the last year, the courts have actually maintained the government's position. It was in an appeal court decision that this was reversed, and the government has acted relatively quickly to change the legislation to preserve the status quo and save taxpayers from having to refund big banks.

That's a case where I think what's going on is not anywhere near as nefarious as it has been made out to be. That's why I won't be supporting those amendments.

When it comes to the EI appeal board, we have a few amendments. What I want to say globally about the changes to the appeal board in the budget implementation act is that I think this is largely a change that's headed in the right direction. We heard that from a lot of different folks. Of course, we didn't get to hear it at this table, but we heard it elsewhere. I think that's a really positive thing. Some of the details that we might quibble about and that the amendments seek to change, overall, are not huge and don't substantially alter what's going on.

In respect to the Bloc amendment to slightly change the reporting relationship of the executive head of the EI appeal board, that's one I am inclined to support. That's something I too have heard from stakeholders. I think it provides a little more clarity.

In respect to the Bloc amendment around in-person appeals, I'm satisfied that the legislation goes at least as far as the amendment would. I worry that the language here might make things needlessly complicated. If there is an issue, I think it's in the vagueness of “except in the circumstances provided for”, because those are circumstances provided for in regulations.

To the extent that I share Mr. Ste-Marie's concern that people should always be able to insist on an in-person hearing, I think it's the exception that is probably the biggest threat to that. I note that this is preserved by his amendment, so I don't intend to support that particular amendment.

In terms of the amendment that would create some reporting on cost, I'm not usually opposed to such things, but I don't really see the purpose here. I think this is a real change in the way that the appeal board is going to work. It's not a change that's being made for the sake of cost-effectiveness. It's a change that's being made in order to, hopefully, be able to hear more appeals more quickly and to have fairer outcomes for people who have been hearing those cases.

I think that trying to artificially maintain an idea of what the operating cost structure would be for something that's changed substantially over the years is not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Blaikie, there are bells. We need UC to continue. There are bells in the House right now. Do we have—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There's a no.

We are at 9:55 on your time, MP Blaikie.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, everybody, we're back.

MP Blaikie had the floor.

MP Blaikie, you had just over five minutes left for your remarks.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

I was just in the process of going over the proposed amendments. I want to briefly address the amendment on applying GST, or not apply it, to crypto currency mining.

It was an interesting discussion we had in respect to the witness testimony we heard. I am satisfied that the department understands the problems that have been raised and that the intention is to try to create a fair tax policy in this regard while being sensitive to the concerns that have been raised.

It sounds to me as though the dispute is over whether or not the legislation is clear enough. It seems to me as though it's worth giving this particular legislation a shot. I wasn't convinced by the arguments around the table that the legislation is obviously not clear enough, and it does seem to me that the department has a relatively clear intention in terms of how it believes the legislation should be implemented. I think that this is the kind of thing that can be evaluated over time. I'd be open to perhaps revisiting this question in the future, but for the moment I'm satisfied with the legislation in its present form.

I also want to talk briefly about the interswitching proposal. As I understand it, no amendments were proposed on that, but we have had a good discussion here.

I represent Transcona. There are a lot of folks who work for the railway. I think there are some real concerns, which I am not as prepared to dismiss as the agricultural lobby on the Hill is, about employment in Canada and business essentially being handed off to American railways. The interswitching proposal is one that I find hard to support. I will be requesting a recorded vote on clause 443, which is the first of the interswitching clauses.

If that clause passes anyway, then for the sake of efficiency, I won't request a recorded vote on the subsequent clauses. If you could take note of that, Mr. Chair, and consider me to have already requested that vote, that would be great. If we are doing it late in the night, I might miss the opportunity. I would hate to think so. I will do my best to be vigilant. That's why I want to lay that marker down now and inform you, Mr. Chair, that this is my intention. Any kind reminders, in the event that I do miss it, are certainly welcome.

Finally, I want to go through some of the amendments on the air passenger bill of rights.

Actually, I think a substantial amount of the package is dedicated to this. I would be remiss if I didn't commend my colleague Taylor Bachrach for all the work he's done on the air passenger rights question generally as well as in preparing these amendments. I regret that Mr. Bachrach isn't here to present them himself. He wanted to be. He made efforts to be here on Thursday. Members of the committee will know that he was here. Had we not been subjected to a filibuster, we very likely would have considered those amendments in the time that he made available to be here. It has been a very unpredictable process around this table, including the eleventh-hour agreement to have any time at all to discuss amendments. Unfortunately, we weren't prepared to have Mr. Bachrach here to do that.

Any errors or omissions in the presentation of the amendments are my own. They are not his. I apologize in advance if I've not quite captured the intention or the spirit of those amendments.

The amendment he has proposed to clause 445 would put some language back in to protect the right of the complainant to make their own complaints in addition to any proactive requirements for action by the agency. There's some concern here that it is left to the agency's discretion to be the one to move forward on a complaint. We believe an individual complainant should have the opportunity to move forward on something even if the agency does not wish to. We want to make sure the customer is in the driver's seat when it comes to shepherding their complaints forward.

We have some concern about there being a secrecy provision with respect to complaints being adjudicated. We think that's appropriate in the case of mediation, but if something moves to adjudication, open court principles should apply. There should be a body of precedent that's built and that's public. That's not something the current legislation allows for.

I see that I'm getting a little bit of a nod that my time is over, and while there's more to say and there are more amendments, I am grateful to have had at least this much opportunity. I hope that next time we'll have a better process that allows for full and proper debate of these amendments, instead of this kind of rush job that we've all just been subject to.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

Thank you to all members. Thank you for those clear, concise remarks on many of the amendments, whether your party's amendments or those of other parties, and on where you stand on those amendments.

Now, members, as you know, pursuant to the motion adopted by committee, there will be no more debate. There will be no debate now as we move forward.

We are at clause 7.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

No debate—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I'm asking for a point of order. I'm still allowed that. That's still a parliamentary procedure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Could you please read the section into the record? That's not debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're going to suspend for a second.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back.

The request is something that is not done. I spoke with the legislative clerk and clerks. I believe that it's been done once in 20 years. We will not be doing that, MP Lawrence. We'll be moving forward. We are at—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are at clause 7.

Clause 7—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

—I wish to challenge the chair's ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There's a challenge.

[An hon. member]

Can we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

Go ahead, Clerk.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

It has been sustained.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On a point of order, Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have a point of order.