Evidence of meeting #157 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate here.
First of all, as I have said previously, I do not support the imposition of a national carbon tax from an Ottawa perspective because this country is too great and diverse to simply put into one regime.
That being said, I did support Mr. Dusseault's earlier iteration of the same proposal, and it's because, again, I believe that wherever a burden is put on small businesses, particularly those of fishers or farmers or whatnot, there should be equitable treatment. In this case, this will. But to the members opposite, I go back to my original argument that to table-drop such an extensive resolution or amendment the day of clause-by-clause, I think, is exceptional. I think it's regrettable that the government obviously finds it needs to make last minute changes on the fly, and I think we can have a better process.
I hope members opposite don't take some of my opposition to this approach personally, but if they're expecting the members on the Conservative side to simply roll over and agree with them every time they make changes, particularly when there is a bad process, I would hope they would expect better of us because we try to do what we can with what we have.
Thank you.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I am somewhat relieved that this government has found it in its heart to extend a small mercy to one particular group of people even as it administers so much punishment to all the others. I see in that mercy an opening, a possibility that we might go further. I note they have agreed under unrelenting pressure from our official opposition to exempt farmers and fishers. Those working in the forestry sector are also very important to our economy. They also harvest from nature a living that is honourable and dignified, but not without its costs. I wonder if the government might consider finding it in its heart to include the forestry sector as another exemption from this federal carbon tax.
I turn it over to Mr. Sorbara to see if he would do that.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, it's interesting that you can't tell what the Conservatives think or feel because Mr. Albas is saying how wrong it is to bring this forward and Mr. Poilievre says that they're the champions of farmers and fishers. But in fact, it was the NDP who made an amendment, and we then are—
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Okay. So now we take the amendment and provide the clarity that was needed in the specifics around, for example, gasoline, which I spoke about on Mr. Dusseault's motion.
I'll leave it at that, but I'll ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's like what we were doing in the House a moment ago; it's looking good.
We're on NDP-10.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to move NDP-11 before NDP-10, if it's possible. It's regarding the same clause.
Liberal
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Amendment NDP-11 deals with clause 186, which concerns the minister's ability to withdraw penalties. It involves the cancellation of interest and penalties imposed as a result of breaches of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Under this act, penalties are imposed for failing to pay what is owed to the government.
The amendment I'm proposing is to add, after line 9 on page 253, a provision that would require the Canada Revenue Agency, when it waives, cancels or reduces any interest payable by a person under the act, to publish the decision to do so on its Internet site. This is for the sake of transparency. When the minister decides to reduce or waive interest or penalties, we want it published so that we know who neglected their obligations under the act, what interest or penalties were waived and when those decisions were made.
Liberal
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Again, it would be helpful to refer to proposed subclause 100(1) on page 252 of the bill. What my colleague is proposing relates to this subclause.
I think that the compliance and enforcement provisions in Part 1 of the new Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act are based on those in other acts administered by the Canada Revenue Agency. These compliance and enforcement rules work together to ensure that the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is applied effectively, efficiently and fairly.
For these reasons, I don't think subclause 100(3) is necessary. I think it's quite clear that the first two subclauses address this issue. Having said that, perhaps the officials here today would like to elaborate on that.
I will vote against my hon. colleague's proposal.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I would like to ask the officials if there is any similar transparency mechanism for other taxation. When a minister agrees to waive a certain sum for whatever reason, is there any similar process for putting someone's name on the Internet?
Director General (Legislation), Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
No, there is none.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I would simply suggest that we not support this, because from a privacy point of view it's a bit out of step to require that if something has been waived—it could even be for a simple administrative concern or a technical glitch—someone's name is placed on the Internet. If we don't have similar treatment for other taxes, I don't see why this would be any different.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Albas.
Officials, if you have anything you want to add, just raise your hand.
Mr. Dusseault.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I don't want to enter into a very long debate, but I'd just like to point out that it doesn't instruct the minister to disclose the name of anyone. It's just to make sure that, if the minister waives, cancels, or reduces an interest, he or she must publish the decision. It doesn't need to be the name of the person, only the amount that was waived, reduced, or cancelled.