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.
8:10 p.m.
Liberal
8:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Again, on accountable government, on making sure it's transparent in how it taxes and the results of said tax, this particular amendment, Mr. Chair, would set out:
(2) The report must also set out the impact of the Act on the Canadian economy, broken down by industry sector.
I think that's important because we've talked about how the federal government is moving forward with this backstop. Again, certain industries will be treated differently. For example, we know now that fishers as well as farmers are exempt from the federal backstop, but there are others, such as the wood and lumber industry, which as Mr. Pierre Poilievre has raised, have been of equal worth. There are many other small and large mining operations that would probably want to be included, coupled with other areas that I think are important. In British Columbia we have one of the most diversified economies in the country. I do think that people deserve to know what those impacts are, broken down by industry. Again, some provinces will equate themselves with particular industries, and they deserve to have this information presented.
In particular, I'm also very concerned about what's known as “carbon leakage”, where you actually push out certain economic activities to jurisdictions that do not have a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, which then makes you less competitive. I think it's important for us to know what the costs are.
As many people know, the competitiveness of the Canadian economy is being called into question, particularly by our neighbours down south, who do not have a carbon tax. Even Washington state, which is adjacent to British Columbia, had a carbon tax referendum, and they overwhelmingly voted it down.
I do think that we need to be able to report to Canadians, particularly its impact on industry, to evaluate what it is. Again, I really hope that the members opposite....
I think the member from Brampton would like to know about the soft drink industry, what impacts there would be with the federal backstop in that industry, because I know it's quite close to his heart.
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Albas, for your intervention, while we await some other stuff.
Again, I'd like to point out the same reasoning on the prior amendments. The 2022 review committed to under the pan-Canadian framework will provide the opportunity to do this type of assessment. In our government, we like the way the current provision is because it provides the flexibility to address this issue in the report. The government wants to set the direction of the content of the report through policy rather than through law. With that desire, we'll not be supporting your amendment.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'm going to try a different tack, because obviously, my earlier arguments were not sufficient to get Mr. Sorbara on side.
There are well-established precedents of statutory required content that are put into Canadian bills. For example, on the list of reports and returns, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is required under subsection 71(1) of the Broadcasting Act to submit an annual report on the operations of the corporation, and there is detail in that. Subsection 73(3) details the statutory required content of the report. It breaks down on all of these fronts.
If we go to the list of reports and returns, the Law Commission of Canada is required, under section 23 of the Law Commission of Canada Act, to table an annual report on the activities of the commission. It also has broken down, in law, certain provision of information that parliamentarians of the day decided were important for future parliamentarians. Many of us at this table may have read those reports and benefited greatly from the information presented therein. Again, it doesn't matter if it's a Liberal government, a Conservative government, or as my friend to the left here might want, a different type of government. It doesn't matter. I don't think he's a CCFer, but I do hear that the CCF is quite popular these days.
Again, it's quite common practice for parliamentarians to say that they want to establish certain metrics and to have reporting, and that it not be policy, but law.
I have other examples, but I hope that members opposite would reconsider now that they've learned about the Broadcasting Act standards and the Law Commission of Canada Act, and the reporting that is asked by Parliament and is done year after year to ensure proper transparency.
I ask for a recorded vote on that.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We have copies of Mr. Poilievre's amendment that he read into the record.
The amendment is in order. It's not in both official languages, so I have to ask for permission of the committee to distribute it in one language.
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, it's on the floor. You have spoken to it, Mr. Poilievre. Do you want to explain it further? It is in order.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
The amendment is quite simple. The finance minister would report to Canadians how much the carbon tax cost them, depending on the quartile of income in which they find themselves. The lowest-income quarter, the two middle-income quarters, and then the highest-income quarter of Canadian households would pay this tax, and they would find out how much in carbon tax they paid every single year. This tax is insidious, because its costs are hidden and are not itemized in the consumer goods Canadians buy. Unlike with other taxes, they can't see it on the receipt when they purchase something at a retail outlet.
8:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We have a bit of confusion here. You're talking about quartiles. Are you speaking to the amendment that you read into the record that we couldn't distribute, or are you speaking to amendment CPC-8?
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right, but CPC-8 has the words “income quartile” in it. The one you just tabled in handwriting doesn't. I just want to be clear that we're on the right one.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Yes, that's right. Thank you for the correction, Mr. Chair.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Sorry, I misunderstood. That one is accepted, and it is being debated now.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
This is accepted as an amendment. We can't hand out copies to members, because it's not in both official languages. It is on the floor. You've moved it. You can speak to it.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
This too would help dismantle the carbon tax cover-up. It would require the minister to report on their website the total cost of the provisions contained within the bill we're now debating, which will become an act. It would allow Canadians to better understand the costs associated with the taxes they're paying.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Chair, Mr. Albas must be so upset with this amendment. Because it's not in both official languages, it can't be distributed to this committee. I can't support or even consider an amendment that can't be distributed to the committee. It is always our practice to have any amendment in both official languages.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Notwithstanding the concern Ms. O'Connell has just raised for copies not being handed out here, on the merits of this amendment, I can't believe or understand a government that talks about and uses words like “evidence-based” or “transparency”, seemingly as throw-away buzzwords, when they have an opportunity before us here to shed light on something they have hitherto tried to keep secret. I challenge the government. How could they not support a motion that would allow transparency, allow sunlight onto this tax? This amendment is simple. It's straightforward. It is a way through which all Canadians will be able to see exactly how the carbon tax will affect them. I challenge the members of the governing party to get behind this as a transparency measure, instead of merely paying lip service.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Back to the regular list of amendments and CPC-7. We're still on clause 186.
Mr. Albas.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, this is the seventh opportunity for the government to show it wants to be transparent with Canadians and to reinforce the importance of Parliament as an institution to have that accountability. How can you hold a government to account if you don't have good information? This would create in law, “The report must also set out the total revenues obtained under the Act and the amounts distributed in accordance with the Act.”
Mr. Chair, you might remember I asked specifically.... In British Columbia there has been a carbon tax. One of the things the government of the day, Premier Campbell's, did was to enshrine in it reporting every year by law, and to have it verified by the Auditor General of British Columbia. When I asked to see if there were similar provisions for this backstop, obviously the government either contemplated it, and then did not carry through, or they didn't even contemplate the idea of having it verified that funds that come in and funds that go out are a principle of so-called revenue neutral.
I think that does not convince or comfort those people who believe a carbon tax would simply be a tax grab, and the recycling, so to speak, of those funds would go back to the province or territory that it was taken out of.
I think this is a great way for the government to show (a) transparency, and (b) that members of Parliament feel strongly about receiving the information so we can hold future governments, including this one, to account. I would ask for their support.