Bill C-40 (Historical)

Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006

An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and to make related amendments to other Acts

Part 1 of this enactment mainly implements proposed measures relating to the Goods and Services Tax and Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST). Part 2 contains measures relating to the Excise Act, 2001 and other Acts with respect to the taxation of tobacco, spirits and wine. Finally, Part 3 contains measures relating to the Air Travellers Security Charge.
The GST/HST measures, contained in Part 1 of this enactment, are principally aimed at improving the operation and fairness of the GST/HST in the affected areas and ensuring that the legislation accords with the policy intent. In some cases, adjustments have been made to the legislation as originally proposed in response to representations from the tax and business communities.
The principal GST/HST measures are as follows:
(1) Health: confirms the GST/HST exemption for speech-language pathology services; exempts health-related services rendered in the practise of the profession of social work; zero-rates sales and importations of a blood substitute known as plasma expander; restores the zero-rated status of a group of drugs, collectively known as Benzodiazepines; broadens the specially equipped vehicle GST/HST rebate so that this rebate applies to motor vehicles that have been used subsequent to being specially equipped for use by individuals with disabilities.
(2) Charities: ensures that the exemption of supplies by charities of real property under short-term leases and licences extends to any goods supplied together with such real property.
(3) Business Arrangements: provides transitional GST/HST relief on the initial asset transfer by a foreign bank that restructures its Canadian subsidiary into a Canadian branch; removes technical impediments that hinder the use of existing group relief provisions under the GST/HST; simplifies compliance by excluding beverage container deposits that are refundable to the consumer from the GST/HST base; permits an agent to claim a GST/HST deduction for bad debts, and to claim adjustments or refunds of tax, in respect of sales made on behalf of a principal where the agent collects and reports tax; extends the existing agent rules under the GST/HST legislation to persons acting only as billing agents for vendors; better accommodates special import arrangements between businesses in certain situations where goods are supplied outside Canada to a Canadian customer; ensures that GST/HST group relief rules cannot be used to exempt from GST/HST otherwise taxable clearing services that are provided by a group member to a closely related financial institution who will then re-supply those services on an exempt basis to a third-party purchaser outside the group; clarifies the treatment of the right to use certain types of amusement or entertainment devices, such as the playing of a game, when it is provided through the operation of a mechanical coin-operated device that can accept only a single coin of twenty-five cents or less as the total consideration for the supply; confirms the policy intent and Canada Revenue Agency’s existing practice that no GST/HST or provincial sales taxes on a passenger vehicle are included in calculating the maximum allowable value for input tax credit purposes.
(4) Governments: ensures that a small supplier division of a municipality is treated in the same manner as a municipality that is a small supplier; exempts a supply of a right to file or retrieve a document or information stored in an electronic official registry.
(5) HST-related Rules: as announced by the Government of Nova Scotia, limits the availability of the current Nova Scotia HST New Housing Rebate to first-time homebuyers and reduces the maximum rebate available to $1,500; includes in the Act the draft Specified Motor Vehicle (GST/HST) Regulations, which prescribe the value of a specified motor vehicle for the purposes of calculating the 8% provincial component of the HST in circumstances where the vehicle is brought into a participating province and prescribe the manner in which that tax is required to be paid.
(6) Administration: adds a discretionary power for the Minister of National Revenue to accept late-filed applications for the GST New Housing Rebate and the Nova Scotia HST New Housing Rebate for owner-built homes, where exceptional circumstances have prevented an applicant from meeting the normal filing deadline; adds a discretionary power for the Minister of National Revenue to accept late-filed elections between closely related financial institutions for adjustments that they are required to make for the provincial component of the HST; permits the Minister of National Revenue to exchange GST/HST information with foreign governments that are signatories to the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters; adds a discretionary power under the Act for the Chief Statistician of Canada to provide statistical information concerning business activities to the provinces similar to an existing provision in the Income Tax Act.
The measures contained in Part 2 of this enactment amend the Excise Act, 2001 to implement minor refinements that will improve the operation of the Act and more accurately reflect current industry and administrative practices. They also implement related and consequential amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff and the Excise Tax Act.
The principal measures related to the Excise Act, 2001 are as follows:
(1) Tobacco: extends the requirement to identify the origin of tobacco products to all products, including those for sale at duty-free shops or for export, consistent with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an international treaty on tobacco control; clarifies that cigarettes, tobacco sticks, fine-cut tobacco or cigars, but not packaged raw leaf tobacco, may be supplied to the export market or the domestic duty-free market.
(2) Alcohol: authorizes private laboratories, provincial liquor boards and vintners to possess a still or similar equipment and produce spirits for the purpose of analysing substances containing ethyl alcohol without holding a spirits licence; defers the payment of duty by small vintners selling wine on consignment in retail stores operated by an association of vintners until the wine is sold.
(3) Administration: permits the Minister of National Revenue to exchange excise duty information with foreign governments that are signatories to the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters; adds a discretionary power under the Act for the Chief Statistician of Canada to provide statistical information concerning business activities to the provinces similar to an existing provision in the Income Tax Act.
The measures pertaining to the Air Travellers Security Charge (ATSC), contained in Part 3 of this enactment, include previously announced relief provisions, as well as technical changes to the Air Travellers Security Charge Act.
The principal measures related to the ATSC are as follows:
(1) Relief: relieves, in particular circumstances, the ATSC in respect of air travel sold by resellers or donated by air carriers.
(2) Administration: provides authority for the Governor in Council to add, delete or vary by regulation the schedule of listed airports.

Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the situation raised by my colleague does speak for itself. It demonstrates two things.

First, it demonstrates that the federal government is spending a great deal of money in areas of responsibility that are not federal. It interferes in areas under the purview of the governments of Quebec and the provinces. But when it comes to taking care of its own responsibilities, it is often nowhere to be found, as we have seen in fisheries and international issues. When asked to take action to protect the manufacturing industry, it is nowhere to be found. On aboriginal issues, it is nowhere to be found. It is somewhat odd to have a government meddle in the business of Quebec and the provinces, but not look after its own.

Second, it demonstrates how impotent this government and the members of its caucus are, particularly those from Quebec. This is a government that does not take action; it does nothing and is only spurred into action when it is up against the wall, after every pressure possible has been brought to bear. Any results delivered by this government—as we have seen in the last budget with the cash transfers to Quebec and the provinces—are due to the fact that a minority government has to cooperate.

This goes to show the important role played by the Bloc Québécois. If it were not for the Bloc pressuring the government, nothing would get done.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, St-Hubert Airport; the hon. member for Don Valley East, The Environment; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Foreign Affairs.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my hon. colleague from Willowdale, who took the floor about an hour ago, because I was delayed. He spoke very well, and I thank him for his remarks. I was with visiting students from a school located in my riding.

It is a pleasure for me to rise a little later than originally planned to speak to Bill C-40. This is largely a housecleaning bill on which I do not think there will be any significant disagreement among members of the House.

The bill deals with measures relating to the GST in the first part. The second part has amendments to the Excise Tax Act. Finally, the bill has measures affecting the air travellers security charge.

I was thinking I would use my time, since there is not a great deal of controversy, to talk a bit about the GST, in particular the differences in fundamental economic policies between our party and the government. One of those differences involves the GST.

However, before I get into that, I will deal with one element of the bill, which is worth raising. It has to do with the GST rebate applying to motor vehicles that have been used subsequent to being specially equipped for use by individuals with disabilities. There is a GST rebate for large vehicles for individuals with disabilities.

My party certainly supports this measure. However, it reminds me of something else that was in the recent budget, and this is an item which consequences the government has maybe not thought about. I am talking about the green levy on gas-guzzling vehicles.

In general, this may not be a bad policy, but I wonder if the government has thought about the unintended consequences of this new tax, in particular the fact that many disabled families need to buy vehicles that are appropriate for their use and have no choice but to buy larger vehicles, which might be the gas-guzzling vehicles attracting this additional charge.

On the one hand, the government is giving a GST rebate. On the other hand, it is taking more than all of it back by imposing this gas-guzzling tax on vehicles that need to be large for the use of people with disabilities.

While the Jeep Patriot may be a fine vehicle, it is not big enough to move around the sort of equipment that these families need to help transport their disabled children. As a result, these people now have to pay a few thousand dollars more out of their own pockets to cover the increased costs of these larger vehicles. I do not see how it is fair that these families should be forced to pay a large tax levy on their vehicle simply because, in their circumstances, a larger vehicle is an essential need.

Could the government not have included something in the budget to acknowledge this set of circumstances?

Obviously the finance minister put some thought into the vehicle emission tax. He studied it enough to give the car manufacturing plant next to his own riding a break on the E85 ethanol vehicles it produces. He was willing to do this even though there is not a single gas station available to the Canadian public where they can buy the 15% ethanol content gasoline.

I hope, as the budget moves through the House, the point about large vehicles for people with disabilities will be given serious attention.

Let me now turn to perhaps the broader issue I want to address, which relates to the GST. It also reflects the fundamental difference in overall economic approach between the two sides of the House.

On our side of the House, we start with the premise that the world does not owe Canada a living, that Canada has to be competitive in this modern world. We have to compete not only against the emerging giants like China and India, but established giants like Europe, the United States and Japan. In this context of competitiveness and fairness, the last thing any country like Canada needs to do is raise income tax in order to pay for a reduction in GST.

I do not think there is an economist on the planet who would advocate such a policy. On the one hand, we have an aging population that needs to save for their retirement and the government is cutting the GST which encourages people to buy more and save less. At the same time, the government is raising income tax, partly to pay for the GST cut, and by raising the income tax, it is discouraging saving, investment and productivity.

While other countries with which we compete, such as Australia, have been cutting their income tax and company tax in broad based fashion, we, alone in the world, are cutting the GST and raising income tax. That is the opposite of what our party would do in government. This is an extraordinarily foolish policy, which I do not think commands the support of a single economist.

The other thing one has to understand is that to compete in the modern world, we will not compete with India and with China on the basis of our low wages. We would not want to do that. We really have only our people with whom to compete and we have to provide those people with ideas, education and research funding.

Fundamental to successful, internationally competitive economic policy is support for research, education and commercialization. This is the second area in which we part company. The government has actually slashed funding to research and has not given a penny to students in the most recent budget. Our plan would be to significantly increase research funding, including support for taking ideas from the lab to the market, commercialization, as well as putting substantial sums into the pockets of students.

The third difference, and the final difference that I will mention today, is that we are internationalist in our outlook. We believe Canada has to take on the world. We have to expand our investment and trade opportunities around the world, whereas the government is incredibly domestically inward looking. What is the evidence of that? If we take the world's biggest emerging economy, China, the government insults China. If we take the second biggest, and in some ways equally important, India, the government ignores India. A few weeks ago I could have said it had not sent a single minister there in more than a year in office. I think a week or two ago, the first minister went there. However, the government has insulted China and has ignored India. It is also closing consular positions in Europe, in Milan, in Japan and around the world.

This is not a sign of a government that wants to expand international trade, expand investment, take on the world. This is the policy of an inward looking government that seeks only to get votes to win the next election.

Our economic policies are fundamentally different. We see Canada as taking on the world. We would have lower income tax, not lower the GST. We would fund research, commercialization and students, not slash funding for these things. We would seriously take on trade and investment opportunities with the emerging and established world, contrary to the opposite direction in which the government is heading.

Let me now move on to a second theme, which is another extraordinarily foolish thing that the government has done, and it relates to the subject of income trusts.

We all know the government broke a solemn, serious election promise, an unconditional election promise, made to all Canadians. The Conservative government promised it would not increase the tax on income trusts. What did Canadians do? They put more and more money into income trusts, secure in the knowledge that their Prime Minister had promised to them that he would not tax them.

Canadians knew there were market risks in income trusts, but they thought the political risk had been removed because their newly elected Prime Minister had promised several times, and unequivocally, never to tax those income trusts. Therefore, the market grew because Canadians took the Prime Minister at his word.

Then what happened? On Halloween, the finance minister cut those Canadians off at the knees, broke that promise and imposed a draconian 31.5% tax on income trusts. What happened? The market collapsed the next day.

In a single day, Canadians who had taken the Prime Minister at his word lost $25 billion of hard-earned savings. It went up in smoke. As if that were not bad enough, the manner in which the government executed this broken promise was extraordinarily further damaging to the Canadian economy, because the draconian 31.5% tax essentially destroys the income trust sector.

Income trusts are very valuable savings vehicles, particularly for seniors who need the proceeds from their savings to pay the bills. Seniors had been heavily invested in income trusts and now that vehicle has been taken away from them by the government's policy to destroy the income trust sector.

Not only that, Alberta in particular--but also elsewhere--had a thriving energy trust sector that, in the words of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, was contributing to productivity, to the repatriation of foreign capital and to financing other branches of the energy sector. That was before Halloween.

After Halloween, the sector has been decimated. It is sitting there at bargain basement prices. Instead of repatriating foreign capital, it is being gobbled up by foreign capital.

This policy has destroyed $25 billion of Canadians' hard-earned savings. It has deprived all Canadians, especially seniors, of the valuable savings vehicle in the form of income trusts. It is decimating an industry that was thriving before this highly inappropriate action by the government.

All of this is neither fair nor contributing to government revenue. This is why it is so particularly foolish. It is called the tax fairness plan, but it should be called the tax unfairness plan. It is supposed to tax corporations more so that individuals pay less tax. It does the opposite. Let me explain those two points.

On fairness, what does the government's so-called tax fairness plan do? It deprives ordinary Canadians of access to income trusts. They can no longer get the benefits of these income streams if they are ordinary Canadian investors, but what if it is a deep-pocketed Canadian pension plan or a deep-pocketed private equity foreign venture? Then it can still derive the benefits of an income trust because it can buy the underlying assets directly and receive that flow of money.

The income trust vehicle is still open to the deep-pocketed pension plans and the foreign private equity companies, but the government has disallowed that vehicle to ordinary Canadians. That is not tax fairness. That is tax unfairness.

To further compound that, instead of getting more tax revenue out of this policy, the government is getting less tax revenue, because the previous owners of the income trusts pay a lot of tax. It is personal tax, but it is still tax. What about the new owners? The pension plans pay no tax, except by the pensioners when the money is ultimately distributed, and the private equity companies pay little or no tax because they have ways of leveraging themselves so that they will end up paying no tax.

We have the irony here of the tax fairness plan being the tax unfairness plan, depriving ordinary Canadians of investing in income trusts and welcoming with open arms the investments in income trusts by the fat cats. In so doing, the government is in fact depriving itself of revenue because those fat cats, the Canadian pension plans and the private equity companies, pay little or no tax compared to the previous income trust holders.

It is a disastrous policy. It is an ill thought out policy. It is a policy to drop a nuclear bomb on a problem when what was needed was a more surgical approach. Indeed, the Liberal Party's approach is just that: the more surgical, sensible approach. We would immediately repeal this illogical, irrational, draconian 31.5% tax and replace it with a 10% tax which would be refundable to Canadian residents.

That would be enough to deal with the tax leakage. At the same time, according to experts, two-thirds of the value lost, the $25 billion, would be returned to savers who had lost their money, the income trust savings vehicle would still be available, and the energy trust sector would be able to return to its thriving former self. This policy cannot entirely put the toothpaste back in the tube, but it would eliminate the worst features of the government's illogical and unfortunate income trust policy.

I will deal with one last issue, because it is the third foolishness of the government. The first is the whole economic thrust, particularly the GST cut and the income tax hike. The second is the income trust fiasco.

The third is the stupendously foolish proposal on which, thankfully, the minister is now flip-flopping, and which involves interest deductibility. He said this measure would give $40 million a year in revenue. The experts say between $1 billion and $2 billion per year. That is only out by a factor of some 3,000%. That does not show great competence to begin with.

However, the real problem here is that we are forcing our own homegrown Canadian companies to compete with foreign companies with one hand tied behind their backs. If a company from Europe, the United States or Japan buys a foreign asset, it can tax deduct the interest that it has to pay on debt. Canadian companies, under the government's proposal, will not.

Let us take an example. It has been in the news. I do not know if it will happen, but it has been in the news. It is the idea that Magna might buy Chrysler. Let us say that Magna is in competition with a U.S. or European company to buy Chrysler. Purely as a consequence of the government's interest deductibility measure, those foreign companies would be able to pay 37% more for Chrysler than Magna would be able to pay. That is purely because of the government's measure. Obviously Magna or any other Canadian company bidding against a foreign company would be at a huge disadvantage in buying any foreign company. That particular number is based on a fifty-fifty debt equity ratio in the financing.

Why does that matter? That matters because companies grow beyond the Canadian borders. If companies are to continue to grow, they must grow beyond Canada. This foolish measure of the government is tying the hands of Canadian companies behind their backs and sending them out in the big wide world to compete against foreign companies at a huge disadvantage.

As a study by KPMG has said, this will result in weaker Canadian companies, a weaker ability to acquire assets and more foreign takeovers of Canadian companies.

The whole financial world, anyone who knows anything about these things, is up in arms. We have had an expert say that this is the worst tax policy in 35 years. The Conservatives are out on their revenue estimates by 3,000%. There was a Deloitte Touche conference of about 1,000 experts yesterday who were surveyed and 90% of them said it was a bad idea. It is a disaster.

Our party and our leader announced nine days ago that we would not do this. We would scrap this idea because it is so disastrous for Canadian competitiveness, Canadian jobs and Canadian prosperity.

Fortunately, the minister came to his senses. Perhaps he heard our leader speak nine days ago and understood the wisdom of our approach. The minister said yesterday that he is flip-flopping. He will not go ahead with this. He will go ahead in a much more minor, small way and he has admitted that he did not do his homework, he did not think it through, and now he is adopting the Liberal policy--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member that he says the Liberals would reverse it. There are some high-ranking Liberals who used to be in the party who have the same views as ours, and I am sure there are many who if they ever became government would as well.

Sheila Copps is one of them. She said that reversing the income trusts decision “would...run afoul of espoused Liberal principles, by promoting a tax loophole for a select few, financed by the rest of us”.

John Manley said, “It was the right thing to do...Any day that good public policy triumphs is a good day”.

I also want to ask the member, who is the Liberal finance critic, if he really did read the budget. This concerns his comments on the green levy for vans equipped for wheelchair access. If he did read the budget and the implementation bill, at page 46, in paragraphs 68.02(1) (a) and (b), he would know that this provides a refund of the green levy for vans equipped for wheelchair access.

I also want to comment for member who used to be the revenue minister that if he thinks reducing the GST is inconsequential, then he should think back to when he was the revenue minister. He will remember the underground economy that was going on because of the GST. It was in the billions of dollars, I believe, but maybe he can correct me.

Maybe it was billions that they found in the scams in, I believe, Atlantic Canada at the time; there was a car scam. Maybe I am incorrect, but I do believe there was quite a scam and it uncovered about $1.9 billion. It was done just between car dealerships in Atlantic Canada with the United States.

I would like to know if he realizes that people perhaps welcomed the percentage point reduction in the GST.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, fighting GST fraud is a significant activity of government. I did some of that when I was revenue minister. Those things can be done whether the GST is 6%, 5% or 7%.

The more fundamental point is that this is not trivial at all. We are talking about $5 billion or $6 billion per year of revenue for every GST point cut. We can do huge amounts of income tax cuts and huge amounts of social programming with that amount of money.

It is a gross waste of the fiscal capacity of a government to spend it on a GST cut for a penny or two on a cup of coffee when we consider that for two points of the GST we could have $10 billion, $11 billion or $12 billion per year, which would buy us a massive tax cut or a massive improvement in social programs.

I am not sure if the hon. member was listening to me, but the point is that the income trust policy results in less revenue for the government, not more revenue for the government. That is why I said it was a tax unfairness plan, not a tax fairness plan.

What I said earlier, and I will just repeat it very quickly, is that when these income trusts are bought out by pension plans and by private equity ventures, those pension plans and private equity ventures pay no tax or very little tax, whereas the previous owners of the income trusts paid a lot of tax.

Therefore, far from the government's policy adding to government revenues, as she said, it subtracts from government revenue to the tune of, with the last seven or eight acquisitions among income trusts, I think, those alone costing the government some $130 million a year.

I am afraid that the hon. member has her direction wrong. It will result in less revenue for the government, not more, and that is one of the virtues of the Liberal plan.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, would the member agree with Liberal John Manley that “it was the right thing to do” and that “any day that good public policy triumphs is a good day”? What about the policy part of income trusts? What about Sheila Copps' comment that reversing the income trusts decision “would...run afoul of espoused Liberal principles”?

Would the member agree or disagree that this goes against Liberal principles by promoting a tax loophole? In Sheila Copps' view, that is what it was, financed by the rest of us. I would like his answer on what he thought of those comments.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my comment a third time. Sheila Copps is wrong. It perhaps was not as evident at the time before all these private equity acquisitions occurred.

I am now telling the member for the third time that this policy results in less revenue for the government, not more revenue for the government. That might not have been apparent to Sheila Copps when she made the comment but it is eminently apparent right now to the experts in the field.

I am not saying that there is absolute unanimity on our policy but I am saying that the recent commentary of Jack Mintz, for example, who was previously in support of the government, has now turned against the government. I am not sure if Mr. Manley, if he observed the recent fiasco in terms of the new set of acquisitions, would hold to that comment or not. The circumstances have deteriorated since those two individuals made their comments.

I certainly stand by the fact that this is a disastrous policy and our Liberal plan would have been far superior.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what about the refund on the green levy for vans equipped for wheelchair access? Did the member read that part of the budget? I read out the pages. It was in the implementation bill on page 46. If the member had read it, he would know that it provides a refund of the green levy for vans equipped for wheelchair access.

I just want to know if the member would like to correct the record as the finance critic so he will not be misunderstood?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was correct on other points but I may be wrong on that one. It was my impression that such vehicles were, on the one hand, given the benefit of a GST rebate but, on the other hand, were subject to the gas guzzling levy.

I suggested that second point could be corrected. If the member is telling me that second point has been corrected, then I am pleased to hear that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the three policies of interest deductibility, income trusts and the decision to waive withholding tax, would the member comment on the impact of those three policies when taken together as they relate to our economic sovereignty?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a certain combined effect or a mutually reinforcing effect of these things. All of them tend to make it easier for foreign companies to acquire Canadian companies and harder for Canadian companies to acquire foreign companies.

I am not an NDPer. I am not objecting to foreign ownership or Canadians buying foreign companies or foreigners buying Canadian companies. I do not want to build a huge wall around Canada like in Albania in the 1960s, which sometimes one suspects the NDP wants to do. All I want is that we not tilt the playing field in favour of foreign companies at the expense of Canadians and that is what these policies, which my hon. colleague has described, tend to do.

I want, if anything, to create a Canadian advantage, which is the government's stated policy, but by its actions it has created a Canadian disadvantage, favouring foreign companies at the expense of homegrown Canadian companies. That is bad policy but that is the consequence, whether intended or unintended, of the government's misguided economic policies.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have already had an opportunity to speak to Bill C-40 at second reading. I find it to be a useful bill but, at the same time, it is so technical that we are sometimes not too motivated to participate in the debate. This bill amends the the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and other Acts. In the tales of Asterix, Obelix used to say that it did not matter whether menhirs were large or small--they were still menhirs. Similarly this bill, technical or not, must be debated and I am pleased to speak about the Bloc Québécois position on behalf of our party.

This fairly technical bill takes a very logical approach to dealing with a certain number of issues and that is why we will support this bill. First it addresses various shortcomings associated with the GST and excise tax. It removes taxes from certain medical services, which will facilitate access to these services. I will come back to that. It reduces the burden of taxation on charities, and I believe no will take issue with this point. It also provides for measures to help small wine producers. That is a positive measure for the wine producers in the Lanaudière region. It tightens legislative provisions with regard to the production and sale of tobacco in order to counter smuggling. Who would oppose that? It adjusts the air travellers security charge.

When in Ottawa, the Bloc Québécois, as a group, often feels somewhat like it is in the fictional Gaulish village to which I referred earlier, when talking about Asterix and Obelix. We must resist the federalist invaders and the invasions by the federal government. However, this time, I must say that this bill respects federal and provincial jurisdictions. As I said, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-40.

Bill C-40 is divided into three parts. The first part aims to institute corrective steps to improve and specify certain measures having to do with the collection of the GST. The second part amends the act in order to zero-rate particular products and services. It turns then to the excise tax, laying out certain measures related to the taxation of wine, beer and spirits. The third part amends the rules on the air travellers security charge collected at various airports.

Naturally, I will start with the first part of Bill C-40, which has to do with GST-HST-related measures. In Quebec's case, this means the Quebec sales tax.

As I said, the first of these measures has to due with health-related rules. The bill amends the act so that speech-language pathology services are henceforth effectively zero-rated. This seems, to me, a matter of common sense. A child, loved one or family member might need this type of service. In my opinion, it is somewhat immoral to tax something that is completely essential and necessary to a person's well-being. This change confirms the tax-exempt status of these services. It will make it easier for young people with language problems to access such services. This change will also help older people who have suffered strokes to access services to learn to speak again, thereby enabling them to continue living in dignity.

Then, in the area of health care again, the government will exempt services provided in the practice of the profession of social work. There are times when we need to seek the assistance of a social worker. This measure will make it easier to access such services. Nowadays, the professional duties of many social workers include acting as substitute psychologists, something which I am convinced the college of psychologists is not too thrilled about. In areas where the needs are huge, we often see shortages of specialists such as psychologists. Purchasing the services of a social worker may be a perfectly appropriate alternative. It seems totally normal to me that the government exempt from tax the services of social workers.

The government will also zero-rate the sales and importation of a product that can be used to some extent as a blood substitute. Again, it seems to me that everyone will understand that there was something sick about taxing a product making possible crucial treatments for seriously injured patients.

Back to my analogy with the village of ancient Gauls and Getafix. Members will recall that Getafix is the druid who mixed the magic potion than gave that village the strength to resist the invading Roman army. In Bill C-40, the government removes the tax on a group of drugs like Valium, Ativan and others. These are drugs needed to treat anxiety, and drug and alcohol withdrawal or as a component in preanesthetic preparations. Again, there was something predatory about government taxing drugs that do not fall under the category of consumer purchases, but are simply something that members of our society who are often dealing with enormous difficulties buy because they need it for their well-being.

Finally, as I was saying, there is an aspect of the bill that is not directly related to health, but to the welfare of people with disabilities. I am talking about the GST rebate for motor vehicles that have been used subsequent to being specially equipped for use by individuals with disabilities.

As you can see, there are measures in this bill that are relatively modest, but they cannot be criticized because, quite frankly, they are just common sense.

As far as charities are concerned, again in the first part on the GST and HST, we see changes ensuring that the exemption of supplies by charities of real property under short-term leases and licences will extend to any goods supplied together with such real property. For example, someone leases a facility with a photocopier. The leased photocopier was then taxed. In the context, this measure is minimal, especially after the cuts the Conservative government made to certain agencies. I am thinking of women's groups and literacy groups. It probably would have been better not only to have this measure, which will very slightly alleviate financial pressure, but also to re-establish all the budgets of these community groups that were cut last September.

Nonetheless, there is something there that we cannot oppose. In other words, we will also support this measure.

There are other business arrangements that affect, in particular, foreign banks that restructure their Canadian subsidiary into a Canadian branch. This a measure that affects consumer rights. We know that in Canada there is a very significant bank concentration problem. The five largest banks control most of the market, by far. Parliament, the House of Commons and the Standing Committee on Finance—I have taken part in this—have tried a number of times to find ways to improve competition on that market. I remember Bill C-8, which addressed this more or less successfully.

Having a measure that would facilitate the restructuring of a foreign bank's Canadian subsidiary into a Canadian branch seems conducive to improving competition in a very concentrated market, as I was saying. That is the first point. We also find in this bill some changes to simplify tax collection by small stores that deal with beverage container deposits that are refundable to the consumer. This simplifies life for small merchants and it seems to me that there a number of things here as well that just make sense.

There is one last measure in this first part that concerns governments. The bill will exempt a supply of a right to file or retrieve a document or information stored in an electronic official registry. This will mean, for example, that municipalities can provide information requested by taxpayers at a lower cost.

As hon. members can see, these are not sweeping measures. There is nothing to get upset about; these are small measures that make good sense.

The same is true of the second part, which pertains to excise tax. As I mentioned earlier, the measures in this part amend the Excise Act, 2001, to implement minor refinements that will improve the operation of the act and more accurately reflect current industry and administrative practices.

They also implement amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff and the Excise Tax Act.

I want to summarize the tobacco-related measures in Bill C-40. To better defend against the smuggling of tobacco products and facilitate collection of the tax on tobacco, the bill extends the requirement to identify the origin of tobacco products to all products, including those for sale at duty-free shops.

In this case, there will be a small problem, because the government has decided to put an end to the GST visitor rebate, except in the case of conferences and tours. Although the government's intentions are good, this will have much less impact, because of what was announced in the budget regarding the GST visitor rebate.

However, the bill does extend the requirement to identify the origin of tobacco products to duty-free shops or products sold for export, consistent with international treaties including the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

The bill also clarifies that cigarettes, tobacco sticks, fine-cut tobacco or cigars, but not packaged raw leaf tobacco, may be supplied to the export market or the domestic duty-free market. These are relatively minor amendments, but they make a lot of sense.

As far as alcohol is concerned, Bill C-40 authorizes provincial liquor boards and vintners to possess a still or similar equipment and produce spirits for the purpose of analysing substances containing alcohol without holding a spirits licence. This measure will relieve provincial liquor boards and vintners of the entire administrative burden and cost involved in acquiring a licence for such equipment, stills or similar equipment.

Furthermore, in order to promote growth in Canada's wine industry, the government will allow the deferral of payment of duty by small vintners selling wine on consignment in retail stores operated by an association of vintners until the wine is sold. Something did not seem right, particularly asking small vintners to pay tax in advance before the product is even sold. These are often small-scale businesses that do not have enough liquid assets to assume this type of responsibility without putting the very survival of the business at risk. This is a welcome measure. The federal government has finally understood that this sector plays an important role in economic development, especially in the regions.

I remember the battle the Bloc Québécois had to wage for the reduction of excise tax on microbreweries. We finally won that battle, not in the last budget, but in the previous year's budget. This is another measure that will simplify life for small producers. When they supply their products to retail stores operated by their association of vintners, they will only have to pay GST once the product is sold—as I already mentioned. This new measure will help market local products. There are now specialty markets scattered throughout Quebec where these wine products are available.

By the way, I just want to say that the industry in Quebec is doing quite well. Wine producers have banded together in the Association des vignerons du Québec. This would not necessarily please Obelix, who does not drink alcohol since he fell into a cauldron of magic potion when he was young. In some of the books, we see that this had a rather disastrous effect on his behaviour. However, Gérard Depardieu, who played the role of Obelix in the Asterix and Obelix films, is a great fan of wine. He would be extremely interested in what I am saying.

In 2006, the Quebec vintners association had 42 members in many of the province's regions. I already mentioned Lanaudière and Île Ronde, where there are tens of thousands of vines, as well as the Eastern Townships, Montérégie and the Lower Laurentians.

Over 100 hectares of vines are cultivated annually, producing 300,000 bottles every year, primarily white wine, ice wine and fortified wine. I would invite all of my colleagues to enjoy Quebec's homegrown wines—in moderation, of course.

In both the second part and the previous part, the new legislation will authorize the Minister of National Revenue to exchange information on excise tax with foreign governments that are signatories to the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. The bill also adds a discretionary power for the Chief Statistician of Canada to provide statistical information concerning business activities to the provinces similar to an existing provision in the Income Tax Act.

Like the measures in the first part, these minor measures are neither very revolutionary nor very impressive, but they are very sensible. We think that these minor measures deserve to be supported, even though—as in the example I gave about charities—they do not eliminate the negative and damaging effects of the Conservative government's cuts to literacy organizations, women's groups and the aboriginal tobacco control strategy.

With respect to the air travellers security charge, I have to say that ever since the previous government brought this tax in, we have tried to find out what good it was doing, but we never really got an answer. I got the impression from various witnesses—especially when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance—that the money from this tax was used for a lot of things other than passenger security.

In our opinion, the costs of air travellers security should be borne by all taxpayers, and not just by those who are often required to travel by air. I remember that, at the beginning, a tax was imposed on people flying out of regional airports. I am thinking of the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine who, unfortunately, cannot always take his car to get here. Because of time constraints, he must fly. This means that he was forced to pay that tax, which was totally unacceptable. There have been reductions over time, and we are told that another one is coming. However, as regards this bill, we are not given any explanation as to why this tax is imposed, its purpose and its link with air safety. The government remains vague on this issue.

Still, a tax relief is included. First, the bill relieves, in particular circumstances, the applicable charge in respect of air travel sold by resellers or donated by air carriers. As we can see, this affects relatively few people. The bill also provides authority for the governor in council to add, delete or vary by regulation the schedule of listed airports.

The bill will change the status of three airports in Quebec, to ensure that the standards meet market demand. So, the bill removes La Grande-3 and La Grande-4 from the list of airports subjected to the surtax under the Air Travellers Security Charge Act. I can say that 95%, if not 99% of those who fly in to La Grande-3 and La Grande-4 are workers involved in the construction or maintenance of the facilities there. They definitely do not go there for a vacation. Some may, but it is not the majority.

Finally, this measure simply makes sense. I will conclude by saying that this series of small measures, of small menhirs, as I said at the beginning, deserve the Bloc Québécois' attention and support and, indeed, we do support them.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed the member talked about how the measures seemed small. In a way, he showed a great deal of responsibility when he said that even if the measures seem insignificant or small, they are important.

We were talking about what happened with microbreweries. I could say the same thing about the Îles-de-la-Madeleine. There is a beer made by a microbrewery in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine called À l'abri de la tempête. This is one of the ways to help small businesses. Together, these measures ensure that economies can keep going and be helped. These seemingly small measures produce big results. This company in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine has been in business for a few years. In addition, it creates a sense of belonging within a certain culture. At the same time, it also shows that, economically, it is possible to do great things in a region like ours. This beer, which is quite good, is exported to other areas.

The same goes for wine producers with respect to Bill C-40. It is an interesting analogy, and I might like to hear more about it, since he is quite familiar with this issue in his own area. Maybe this could bring us back to the fact that Obelix obviously fell into the magic potion, but others, who did not have the same luck as Obelix, still had the chance to get a good taste. I think it is worth looking at what our parliamentary leader said about microbreweries and small wine producers.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question because it gives me the opportunity to mention something that I feel is important to bear in mind. We too, in the Lanaudière region, have several microbreweries. In Joliette, we have L'Alchimiste, of which we are very proud. This measure announced in the previous budget, as I mentioned, has greatly benefited that company.

I want to point out, because it is quite remarkable, that the microbreweries are the ones that fought for an excise tax reduction on the first 700,000 hectolitres produced. The major breweries opposed such a reduction for many years, and their lobby was unfortunately tied in large part to the Liberal government at the time.

It is fascinating to see how the Conservative government has gone about getting this passed. By granting the same reduction to both microbreweries and major breweries, it has bought the silence of the major breweries in order to help the microbreweries. This is really twisting things. Obviously, the competition for microbreweries comes first and foremost from imported beers, cottage brewery beers from abroad. In a rather unsubtle way, the meaning of the measure the Bloc Québécois had been calling for in recent years got twisted. I think that it will nonetheless help our microbreweries grow and further define part of our heritage identity.