Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act

An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act

This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in December 2009.

Sponsor

Jim Flaherty  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment amends the Excise Tax Act (the “Act”) to implement, effective July 1, 2010, the new fully harmonized value-added tax framework in Ontario and British Columbia. It also facilitates the new framework to accommodate any province’s decision to have the provincial component of the harmonized value-added tax under the Act apply in that province by achieving a common understanding with Canada in respect of such a new framework, including the provision of rules and mechanisms to ensure
(a) the proper imposition of the provincial component of the harmonized value-added tax in respect of that province;
(b) the proper application of any element of provincial tax policy flexibility contemplated under the common understanding, including rate flexibility for the provincial component of the harmonized value-added tax, rebate flexibility in respect of the provincial component of the harmonized value-added tax and the temporary recapture of certain input tax credits in respect of the provincial component of the harmonized value-added tax;
(c) the proper functioning and application of the Act in all respects, including provisions flowing from the provincial tax policy flexibility contemplated under the common understanding and the addition of every province that chooses to join the new framework; and
(d) the proper administration and enforcement of, and compliance with, the Act.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

Dec. 9, 2009 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
Dec. 9, 2009 Passed That Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, be concurred in at report stage.
Dec. 9, 2009 Failed That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Dec. 9, 2009 Failed That Bill C-62 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Dec. 8, 2009 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 10:55 a.m.
See context

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member confuses two totally distinct points.

I said in my speech that the fingerprints of the Prime Minister and the finance minister are all over this legislation. The quotes that he cites are consistent with the fact that the government has, so to speak, been bribing provinces to adopt the HST. They certainly share the responsibility, and I agree with that point.

However, the second and totally different point is that whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, the provincial governments have now come to an agreement with the federal government and have asked Parliament to allow them to have the HST. I do not understand the logic of the NDP denying the requests of legitimately elected provincial governments to allow them to have a tax that other provinces are allowed to have.

The NDP is essentially saying that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador can keep the HST, but for Ontario and British Columbia, it is too late, and they cannot have it. It is not the role of the federal Parliament to make a judgment as to whether the provinces were right or wrong in formulating this tax policy.

My double point is that yes, this measure was aided and abetted very clearly by the Conservative government, but at the same time, once the provincial governments, duly elected legitimate governments, asked the federal Parliament to allow them to do something in their own jurisdiction—

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 10:55 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am just going to stop the member there because I do see some other members interested in asking questions.

The hon. member for Beauséjour.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 10:55 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Markham for his incisive comments on the issue of tax harmonization.

This bill before the House of Commons is a tax measure. The Conservatives spend a great deal of time talking about taxes, pretending that they are interested only in lowering taxes when in fact we have seen in recent times, in recent examples rather massive payroll tax increases in the form of projected hikes to EI premiums.

I am wondering if my colleague, who served as a senior private sector economist, as the chief economist of the Royal Bank of Canada, and who was a distinguished academic before he ran, as he noted, in 2000, to serve in the House of Commons, could perhaps tell us briefly about the negative consequences of potential tax increases and in particular about the Conservatives' payroll tax increase they are planning to impose on Canadians in the form of EI premium increases.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 10:55 a.m.
See context

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

That was a very insightful question from my good colleague, but I am not surprised at his insight since he too is a member of the 2000 cohort. However, I would say that this is an excellent point.

The Conservatives do not seem to understand that an employment insurance premium is a payroll tax. That is what we learn in economics 100.

As they have said in their recent statements, they will be raising those taxes on jobs at the maximum rate for three years starting in 2011 to the point where the average two-earner family will face increased EI premiums of $1,200 and a small business employing 10 people will face an additional bill of $9,000.

I do not think that the Canadian economy will be in good enough shape to be able to cope with this massive increase in taxes on jobs.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 10:55 a.m.
See context

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, in their suggestions today, the hon. colleagues from the Liberals and the Conservatives have wondered why the federal government has anything to do with this.

However, I will quote from the BC Care Providers Association. It helps 10,000 seniors a day. It has written a letter to all parties saying this:

“It is our strong belief that the Government of Canada should also play a more direct role in mitigating the negative impacts of the HST on seniors' care in B.C. and Ontario.”

The fact that the government is ramming this bill through prevents groups like this from coming to this place and being able to tell us how this tax should be implemented.

“The very fact that the feds are washing their hands of this makes groups like seniors in Ontario and British Columbia furious because they have no opportunity to be heard, no opportunity to have this mitigated at all. People who can least afford it, seniors in care, are going to be hit by this tax.”

The member seems to have some misunderstanding as to why the NDP members have a problem with this whole process being used, and with ramming it through. Neither his party nor the Conservatives nor the Bloc members have considered things like this.

Seniors in British Columbia and Ontario are saying they are going to be hit by this. This group, which provides service to 10,000 seniors a day, wants to be heard.

Will it be heard by this member? Will we be able to change this legislation? Of course we will not, because the government is ramming it through. That is the problem with this whole process. The substance of the process stinks as well.

I wonder if the member could address the BC Care Providers Association and the 10,000 seniors it is serving today.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 11 a.m.
See context

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, the position of seniors is a very important one, and it is one that we in the Liberal Party take very seriously. Indeed, in just half an hour from now the leader of the Liberal Party along with a couple of other Liberals and I will be announcing at a press conference important pension measures that are certainly designed to help seniors, because seniors have clearly suffered as a consequence of the stock market crash, the recession and difficult economic times.

I can assure the hon. member that we in the Liberal Party have seniors uppermost in our minds, and in just moments in fact we are going to be making announcements of benefit to seniors.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 11 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that Bloc Québécois members support Bill C-62, which is before us today. Yesterday, some people were wondering whether we opposed the time allocation motion for this bill, given that we did not even see the bill until after the motion was moved. That was completely unacceptable. But now that the motion has been adopted, we agree with the House's decision.

We support this bill, but not for the same reasons as other members, be they Conservative or Liberal. We respect Ontario and British Columbia's decision to harmonize their provincial sales taxes with the GST, because that is what Quebec has been doing for many years now.

We would like to reiterate the request made by Quebec's National Assembly last spring in a unanimous resolution: Quebec must receive fair compensation for having harmonized its sales tax with the federal tax beginning in 1992.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for fair and equal treatment for Quebec in all matters. The federal government changed the rules of the harmonization game. When it compensated the maritime provinces—New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia—it said that Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec would not be eligible for compensation because they stood to lose less than 5% of their tax revenue.

As we have seen, the federal government changed the rules for Ontario and British Columbia. Its latest budget included funds for compensating those two provinces. The Government of Quebec, naturally, passed a unanimous resolution telling the federal government that it makes no sense to change the rules and that it must take into account what Quebec has done in previous years. I will come back to that.

We intend to continue putting pressure on the federal government to resolve this contentious issue that has been around for many years. This is a matter of equality.

I want to put this into context. We know that the Government of Quebec harmonized its sales tax with the federal tax in the early 1990s. At that time, the federal government agreed to allow Quebec to manage the GST within its own jurisdiction.

In 1997, the federal government offered compensation to three provinces—New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia—to harmonize their sales taxes with the federal tax.

Unlike the situation in Quebec, the federal government would manage the federal part as well as the provincial part of the new harmonized tax. As compensation for the loss of revenue caused by harmonization, the federal government paid nearly $1 billion to those three provinces.

Since then, the Government of Quebec has been asking Ottawa for compensation for harmonizing its sales taxes, which it had done five years earlier. However, even though it recognized the Government of Quebec's full harmonization of sales taxes, the federal government refused to compensate Quebec, claiming that the Quebec government's loss of revenue caused by the harmonization was not enough to justify such compensation.

At that time, in order to receive compensation, the loss of revenue caused by the harmonization of the provincial portion of the sales tax had to exceed 5% of the total amount of the provincial tax. At the same time, the federal government said that Ontario and British Columbia were not entitled to this compensation.

But the government is now going back on its word on this lost revenue rule and it has reached an agreement with Ontario and British Columbia. This agreement included significant compensation, to the tune of $4.3 billion for Ontario and $1.6 billion for British Columbia. One might say that, by rejecting the 5% criterion, the federal government has now opened the door for Quebec to qualify for compensation. The rules of the game have been changed for two provinces, so why not change them for Quebec as well and ensure that it, too, is eligible for compensation.

Instead of naturally and fairly compensating Quebec for having harmonized its tax five years earlier, in other words in 1992—or 17 years ago now—the Conservatives, using their legendary bad faith, have started coming up with new excuses not to give Quebec the $2.6 billion it is owed.

In response to their claim, which surprised Quebec's finance minister, Ms. Jérôme-Forget, that the Government of Quebec had not in fact completely harmonized its sales tax with the federal government, Quebec committed to doing one thing right away. There were certain inputs for big companies that were still not exempt from QST. The finance minister announced that the Government of Quebec would proceed with those adjustments. Then, and we heard it here in this House, the Conservatives found new reasons not to compensate Quebec. They said that Quebec should stop charging tax on tax. Through its finance minister, the Government of Quebec promised to so do.

What did the federal government do? It came up with another excuse. From now on, only provinces whose federal and provincial sales taxes are collected by the federal government will be compensated. An agreement was made in 1992 whereby the Government of Quebec would collect the tax on behalf of the federal government. This is just another fine example of the predatory federalism practised by the Conservative government.

As I said earlier, when the two sales taxes were harmonized in 1991, the Government of Quebec entered into an agreement with the federal government whereby the Government of Quebec would collect the tax on behalf of both governments and then pay Ottawa its share. For Quebec, it was and still is a question of autonomy. In exchange, the federal government would pay Quebec $130 million annually. This was not compensation, but payment for services rendered.

The Bloc Québécois respects the decision by Ontario and British Columbia to have the federal government collect their sales taxes. That is their choice and their business. But the Bloc Québécois will support the Government of Quebec in its fight against the federal government, which is trying to take away Quebec's power to collect the GST in Quebec on Ottawa's behalf.

Those are the main reasons why, although we are in favour of the bill, we are still certain that until this dispute between Quebec City and Ottawa is resolved, there will still be an injustice. We are going to work hard to put an end to this injustice and ensure that the federal government provides Quebec with compensation pro-rated to its population and the amount of sales tax collected in Quebec, as it is planning to do for Ontario and British Columbia. Quebec must be compensated fairly for what it has been doing for many years under the sales tax harmonization agreement.

In closing, I would like to say that we will certainly not let this dispute continue. We are not going to let the current government keep on acting unfairly and denying what the Government of Quebec has already done to harmonize its sales tax and even make adjustments. When adjustments have been needed, they have been made quickly.

We are certain that, because of this bill, the provinces will be somewhat more able to create or enter into agreements with the federal government more easily. That is the upside of this bill and that is why we will vote for it.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 11:10 a.m.
See context

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

There is obviously nothing in this bill for them. Does he truly believe they will get something? Did they make a deal with the Conservatives? Is that why they are supporting this bill?

The Bloc is not a national party and it obviously does not care about the impact of this bill on the most vulnerable. In particular, the bill does not mention that the Conservative government has a responsibility towards aboriginal peoples.

I would like him to answer my question: did they make a deal with the Conservatives? Why do they really want to trample aboriginal treaty rights?

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 11:10 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the member that absolutely no deal or agreement has been made between the Conservative government and the Bloc Québécois. I will repeat what I just said. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill because it updates the act that serves as the framework for the 1997 memorandum of agreement between the maritime provinces and the federal government. The protocol and the framework legislation were much more rigid.

We now have before us a situation where it is clear that the federal government is agreeing to compensate two provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, by removing the criterion of a loss of revenue of less than 5%, a criterion that Quebec did not meet. British Columbia and Ontario did not meet this criterion either.

We certainly believe that removing this criterion and modernizing the legislation will make it easier to reach an eventual agreement. We hope that Quebec and the federal government will reach an agreement as quickly as possible. However, there is no agreement in place and there is no guarantee that it will happen. The Bloc Québécois will continue to fight this battle in this House, in keeping with the unanimous resolution adopted by Quebec's National Assembly in February 2009.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 11:15 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, another colleague of the member from the Bloc spoke yesterday about the compensation situation with Quebec, and she laid out a couple of aspects.

The first was that the harmonization taxation was not fully implemented, or that there were still other areas in which harmonization could take place. The other was that Government of Quebec, unlike other provinces, collected all the taxes and remitted to the Government of Canada its share as opposed to the reverse, which is the arrangement with the other provinces.

I do not know what impact those differences may have on the overall bill, but it would appear that the memorandum of understanding with the province of Ontario is unique, as is the understanding and the arranged agreement with B.C. Both of those are even different from the agreements that were reached with the three maritime provinces that harmonized some time ago.

Could the member clarify what changes Quebec would have to make to the harmonization regime and framework that it implemented and how that might impact any requests for a renegotiation of the settlement, or the inducement to have a harmonized tax?

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 11:15 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that most of the differences he is talking about regarding the way that the Quebec sales tax and the GST were harmonized have been resolved. There are just a few very minor points that remain, and they are not significant enough to justify the fact that the federal government refuses to compensate the Government of Quebec. It is very clear that changes have been made.

The main difference is that Quebec currently collects the federal tax and is paid $130 million by the federal government to do so. That is not an obstacle. It is the result of an agreement signed in 1992.

The $2.6 billion in compensation has nothing to do with the fact that the Government of Quebec collects all of the taxes within Quebec. The compensation is to compensate—as the word says—a government that has already harmonized its tax or that plans to do so for the revenue losses it will incur. The Government of Quebec has been losing revenue since 1992, since it harmonized its tax. It makes sense for the federal government to compensate Quebec, as it does for the other provinces.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 11:15 a.m.
See context

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, in supporting Bill C-62, does the Bloc hope that Ottawa will reciprocate and be more favourable to an agreement to compensate Quebec in the future?

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 11:15 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this bill updates legislation governing the process whereby three maritime provinces were given compensation in 1997. The bill updates the framework, based on the assessments that have been done. Of course, this paves the way for harmonization and compensation for Ontario and British Columbia, but it also opens to the door to compensation for all provinces that decide to harmonize their sales tax or have already done so. That is very clear.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 11:20 a.m.
See context

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak again in opposition to what is essentially an 8% ripoff for Ontarians and the people in British Columbia.

If the Prime Minister and the McGuinty Liberals have their way, a haircut next summer would cost 8% more. Burying a loved one would cost 8% more. Vitamins, a pair of sneakers, postage stamps, vet fees for a dog and an oil change for a car would all cost 8% more. Even the price of gas would go up. That would hurt a lot of families, seniors, young people and small businesses.

From the outset, the NDP said that the HST was the wrong tax at the wrong time. The recession is still being felt, unemployment is still rising and this regressive tax will take $2.5 billion out of the pockets of those who are least able to afford it. To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister will give Premier Dalton McGuinty $4.3 billion in exchange for his agreements to tax Ontarians more. B.C., which will also get the HST, is being paid too. Therefore, I can understand why Quebec, which has already harmonized its sales taxes, will want compensation.

These payouts are all money that drives Canada further into debt, and for which the government has not budgeted.

At the same time, big companies will win the jackpot yet again with another $1.5 billion in corporate tax cuts and, as McGuinty and the Prime Minister boast, the HST will cut business input costs even further. In other words, the HST will drive up taxes for families and lower them for big business.

The Prime Minister and McGuinty say that we need to look at the bigger picture. Okay, let us do that. Here is what we see. This recession was caused, not by high wages or a lack of initiative on the part of working Canadians. It was caused by a carnival of greed among bankers, financiers and others who took reckless risks and triggered a worldwide financial crisis.

Yet seniors and hard-working families are the ones taking it in the neck. Pension funds are in difficulties. Retirement savings tucked away in RRSPs have lost much of their value. From next summer onward, big business would pay less and ordinary Canadians would pay more for everything from Internet services to gasoline. That is hardly fair. That is why we are currently locked into battle in the House of Commons to block the legislation that will allow the federal government to foist the HST on Ontarians.

Under the leadership of the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the Liberal Party has sided with the Prime Minister, who has launched an underhanded gambit to ram through the House before the holiday break. It is his way of saying, “Merry Christmas”.

There will be no consultations on the HST law, no committee hearings, no opportunity for Canadians to have their say. The Prime Minister does not want to hear from retiree groups, real estate associations, minor hockey organizations, provincial premiers and many others who have declared their opposition. He wants us out of the way as quickly as possible. He wants to hang this tax on Premier McGuinty. He wants us to get used to this tax grab so we will not blame him forward to the next election.

We will not let the Conservatives take the blame because we know that this is the wrong tax in the wrong hands at the wrong time, and the Prime Minister knows it too. Here is what he said about the HST in the House in December of 1996 when he was in opposition:

We need another way. This harmonization of the GST, this tax collusion between provincial and federal Liberal governments, is not the way to reverse the economic decline of this country.

Here is what the current Minister of Indian Affairs said when he was in the Conservative opposition, “The proof is in the pudding. This harmonized sales tax is going to hurt Atlantic Canada”.

Liberals, who are now supporting the HST, are flip-flopping like mad because they too are on record as opposing the HST. The member for Vancouver South said, “It is absolutely horrendous and it is criminal on the part of the Conservative government to be pushing this policy at a time of deep, economic recession”. He should have made certain that his leader would not flip-flop on yet another policy issue before he decided to go on the record. Now it is coming back to bite him.

Despite the fact that all of these quotes prove my point that the HST does not deserve anyone's support, I am much more concerned about the quotes that I am getting in a flood of emails, letters and phone calls from my constituents on Hamilton Mountain. They know they are getting a raw deal and they deserve to be heard. If the government will not listen to me, perhaps it will listen to the people whose vote it needs to woo.

The first is from Mark, “Charging my customers this cost will hurt my business for sure”. That is from a businessman.

Mrs. Longille says, “We don't need this extra tax. People don't have the money or jobs and are not over this deep recession. I am 79 years old”.

Marg says, “The well is dry. When are the powers that be going to recognize that average citizens can bear no more? Please No HST”.

Ronald writes, “I am a senior on a disability. I am barely making it every month. I live in my parent's house that was left to him and do not want to give it up. I have lived here all my life”.

Debra says, “We're just barely getting by now. This is just going to put us over the edge”.

Ed says, “This tax does not surprise me. That is the Conservative way”.

Fred says, “I am on a fixed income with no cost of living raises. I'm retired, but not by my choice. We are one of the most taxed countries in the world. Are they never going to be satisfied?”

Letty says, “It is unfair to expect low income families and seniors to pay more taxes. Can this change not be stopped somehow?“

Debra says, “We're just barely getting by now. This is just going to put us over the edge”.

Gerry writes, “I feel that “increasing” sales taxes by harmonization is a bad idea. This is a large increase for us consumers by having to pay additional taxes that are now not required on the provincial tax level. ie. heating bills, hydro, new houses, labour on auto repairs etc. Please help stop this tax grab”.

Another person writes, “I am totally against the HST and the 8% tax increase that our governments are trying to place on us. This will surely hurt my family as well as the other Canadian families in Ontario. I believe that the Leaders that we elect have a responsibility to the people of this country to improve the quality of living or life just as we the people have that same responsibility.

The Government's that we elect are not to put burdens or yokes around our necks and this TAX would be doing just that along with other POLICIES that are in the works. The Greed of our Government Officials (not all) and the lack of there integrity are surely hurting Canadians and this Country. I wish that we would go back in time and learn from history to see the problems that Russia and other Countries had and recently came out of. I truly hope that you will sound the trumpet on the issue of the HST and other POLICIES”. I am happy to do that on behalf of Patrick.

Bill writes, “I felt that I should forward this e-mail about the HST to you. Please, help us. We, the seniors of Ontario, are going under like the Titanic”.

John and Jacquie write, “As senior citizens, we have to be very careful with our money and it seems that this new government initiative...does not bode well for us. As you know, the blending of the PST and GST will result in higher end costs for virtually most goods and services. How can this possibly be justified?”

Anne Thors writes, “I think it is outrageous what the provincial and federal governments are doing to us, especially to the seniors. All the MP's and MPP's are well provided for, they are all just a bunch of sorry story tellers. They are forgetting that our vote put them in that place. Will they be surprised when we all change our minds? I am an outraged senior”.

Another person writes, “What happened to the election promise that no taxes would be increased? I guess technically McGuinty isn't raising taxes, he's just creating a new tax. In this time of economic strife, Mr. McGuinty is being completely irresponsible and totally out of touch with the needs of the “little people”. It's hard to know what they need when you are constantly rubbing elbows with the elite”.

Charles says, “In Ontario we are being taxed to death! As a senior we are not getting any increases?”

Frank writes, “After serving in the military for $1.35 a day and being on pension for 25 years and still paying I have done my share. They are trying to squeeze more out of me?”

Armand writes, “Just another tax for seniors and the people in Ontario by the Provincial and Federal government of Canada”.

Doreen writes, “This is a gouging from everyone, especially the low income people. Keep fighting for us”.

Douglas and Sylvia Chisholm of my riding write, “[The Prime Minister] and Mr. McGuinty—Are you losing touch with the people you're supposed to represent? I believe you are”.

John writes, “I'm struggling right now, taxing my utility bills could be what will sink me, and many other families, I am sure”.

“Please do what you can to block the GST.” That is from Linda and Ralph.

Jean and Ronald write, “My husband and I are seniors on a fixed income and would like to add our names to your HST petition... It is pretty scary reading all the additional services and/or items that will have this blended tax added and we would like our voice to count in objecting to this additional tax on the presently exempt services/and or items”.

John writes, “With the added of the cost to the utilities and other non-luxury items we have no extra income to keep the economy rolling. We are taxed so heavy now I don't have extra for my family. If you keep taxing our spending will eventually have to stop”.

Here is one from a businessman that members might be interested in. He writes, “As a constituent in your riding of Hamilton Mountain I am asking for your support on the federal front to block the HST legislation. At a time when most, if not all, Canadians are tightening their belts due to tough economic times, we are facing increases on the simple necessities to heat our homes and turn on our lights with this new tax grab. The claims of job creation, et cetera, fall on deaf ears. The only job creation I foresee is another level of government bureaucracy to manage it. As a small business owner, I see no advantage. Business cheques are cheap and I don't mind signing eight instead of four. What I do mind is investing more of my working capital into a never ending loop of payables and receivables, that I will never gain back these moneys 100% unless I liquidate my inventory and close up shop. As an Importer, I will have to pull the full 13% from my pocket when I customs clear my orders instead of the current 5% GST. I don't know how I'm supposed to benefit from laying out an extra 8% up front and waiting to recoup that money on receivables later. I am a very proud Canadian, but things like this shave a bit off the top of that pride every time it is forced down our throats by those who are elected by us and draw a salary from our hard work. If the opportunity arises in Parliament to defeat this legislation, I ask you to hear my voice as a resounding NO!”

Another email stated, “I think or I know it is disgusting that the Conservative Government and the Ontario Liberal Government have lied and taxed people to the hilt and expect to get blood out of a stone with the Harmonized Sales Tax”.

Ruggerd and Annie write, “Very unhappy about the tax increase. We are on a fixed seniors pension. I think [the Prime Minister] should smarten up and try to help us not destroy us”.

Renee writes, “My family is not ok with the tax hike. We cannot afford to buy food or pay our bills now. We are out of work and trying to find a job is tough enough. This new tax will kill us, we will lose our house”.

Amanda writes, “We are a family - 2 adults and 3 children, already struggling - no tax increase please!”

Audrey writes, “As a housewife with everything going up in price, I am having a hard time. At my age it is very hard to make ends meet”.

Mr. and Mrs. Cappadocia write, “Enough is Enough! My husband is laid off and we find making ends meet now very difficult. A recession is not the time to add more tax”.

Pat and Jackie write, “How distressing! This is just another big tax grab, thank you for informing us of this so-called bribery. Is anyone honest anymore?”

Mr. and Mrs. Robertson write, “My husband and I are seniors, and anymore tax increases are just going to be unbearable. If our pensions increased like the government's do maybe we could make ends meet. Thank you for your hard work on this issue”.

Lawrence writes, “Greed knows no bounds. Those who survive from pay to pay or pension or pension will indeed lose disposable income they cannot afford to”.

Ellen writes, “This tax is an added burden for the unemployed people who are already unable to cope now”.

Marianne writes, “If this is so great a deal, why the advertising blitz outlining its benefit!! It didn't work in the Atlantic provinces and it won't work in Ontario either. Its about time the government listened to the people who are paying the bill”.

Mr. and Mrs. Van Rooyen write, “If this goes through, I know who our family will be voting for in the next election”.

Ruth Morrison writes, “This is no way to get people spending. If they're paying more for the essentials how are they going to have extra money for non essentials?”

Teresa and Regina write, “We are disgusted that they should keep grabbing what little money we have left from our pensions”.

I could go on and on. Perhaps I will get another chance later on in this debate to continue relaying the outrage expressed by my constituents.

However, let me just sum up the arguments that are inherent in the hundreds of emails that I have received and those that I just read.

First, the tax is inherently regressive. It disproportionately hits those who have no choice but to spend all or a large part of their income, and it favours those with income to save. This is doubly true in a recession where less than 50% of the unemployed qualify for EI, where social assistance rates are well below the poverty line, and the cost of essentials loom all the larger.

Second, the HST extends the sales tax to essentials previously not covered by the PST, and apart from those items exempted, and those differ from province to province, those with the lowest income have no choice but to pay it and sacrifice consumption elsewhere. The HST is hitting those who can least afford it harder than anyone else. The tax, quite simply, is unfair.

Third, without significant compensating measures, like the GST tax rebate, or significant exemptions of essential goods and services for low and moderate income families, the tax remains unfair. Our experience with social support programs does not reassure us. Governments that have demonstrated a callous disregard for the plight of low and moderate income households cannot be trusted to apply the HST fairly.

Fourth, the suggestion that the HST will lead to significant increases in investment is unproven. Economist Erin Weir has pointed out that a significant proportion of business inputs in Ontario are already exempted from the PST, therefore removing the remaining tax on inputs will not have the impact that the government claims.

Fifth, if as is argued a sales tax is bad for investment compared to the tax on profits, then why is the removal of sales taxes from inputs not matched by an increase in corporate income taxes? In fact, the opposite is true. The HST is accompanied by corporate income tax cuts at both the federal and provincial levels. In other words, the HST is part of a general and indiscriminate shift in tax burden from the corporations to individuals and families without adequate compensation.

Sixth, progressive economists argue that if we want to use the tax system to encourage investment, across-the-board cuts are an inefficient way to proceed.

Seventh, with the economy operating at two-thirds capacity, increasing profits by lowering taxes through the HST is not as likely to foster new investment as it might when the economy is booming. The timing of this tax, again, is inappropriate.

Last, as for lowering prices, this assumes businesses will pass along their savings to consumers. If this happens, it will happen only in competitive industries. Studies show much less than 100% of the savings are passed on to consumers. In other words, price increases are virtually inevitable.

In conclusion, let me repeat, this is the wrong tax in the wrong hands at the wrong time. It continues the pattern under successive federal Conservative and Liberal governments of pursuing policies that boost the returns to a privileged corporate elite on the flimsy excuse that they will use those returns to benefit the rest of us. Three decades of growing income inequality in this country prove those promises false.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework ActGovernment Orders

December 8th, 2009 / 11:35 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member has covered a lot of ground. It is always interesting to hear what constituents have to say about things when they are only told part of the story.

At the end of her speech the member mentioned the fact that there will be tax credits or input tax credits to businesses because there will not be the cascading of the provincial tax that currently exists, which means that the cost of business expenses will go down, but they will not be passed on unless there is a competitive environment. That is probably true. That is a very important point.

She quoted from an email saying, “Is anyone honest anymore?” I kind of hearken back to the very first thing she said which was that the price of a haircut was going up 8%. Period. Full Stop. However, throughout her speech she did not mention that as part of the agreement between the Conservative government and the province of Ontario, there are permanent income tax cuts of 16.5%, there is a one-time $1,000 credit, and there will also be a new sales tax credit, just as Canadians receive now with the GST sales tax credit.

So there are offsets. It is pretty easy to list the number of goods and services, particularly the services, that will in fact attract a new tax to make the whole system simpler, but the offset to that is to give real, permanent income tax decreases to the residents of Ontario at the same time, and those tax cuts are proposed to be effective January 1, 2010 whereas the HST is not intended to be implemented until July 1, 2010.

My question for the member is, has she been honest with her constituents?