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.
Director General (Legislation), Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Likely, the producer would embed the fuel charge in the price of the product.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Okay. What would be the total cost for an average fishing operation to pay this carbon tax when it reaches $50 per tonne?
Director General (Legislation), Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
We don't have that information.
Director General (Legislation), Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Personally, I'm not aware, but I'm a legislative guy, so....
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, we do have to remember—this speaks to Pierre's and Dan's questions—that the federal backstop would apply only to jurisdictions where there isn't a pricing regime for carbon already in place or that will be put in place, and that the provinces will be remitted the funds, which they can use in a manner to.... Mr. Albas is well aware that in B.C. under the prior Liberal government personal income tax cuts and corporate tax cuts were introduced.
With reference to Mr. Dusseault's amendment, again, the spirit of the amendment is something I can live with. The language in the amendment is, I think, something that is amiss. That's why I'd be voting it down. With that, I have an alternative suggestion that I would like to put forward after we deal with Mr. Dusseault's amendment.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I would like to again bring up the point that until we know otherwise....
The government likes to play this game of saying we're not going to share the information. Even last night, the Minister of Finance would only give information from Alberta. Well, Nunavut, as far as I understand, has not figured out what it's going to be doing, and I do know that there are fishing operations that support local employment there. The government can't play it both ways, where you say that you can't assume something, because the fact is that until a province or a territory has said that this is their regime and this is how they're going to do it, we have to figure that the backstop will apply.
It's interesting that members are now bringing forward more amendments. I don't remember us receiving the amendments. Are these going to be table-dropped amendments?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I would say that's not proper process, and I would look to the chair on that.
Mr. Chair, is this the way we're going to start doing these things? If it's a free-for-all where people can just table-drop, I would imagine other parties would want to do the same thing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Sorbara is talking about the amendment on the floor from Mr. Dusseault. I think he's saying that he's going to put forward an amendment similar, from what I heard.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Okay. Well, it just seems to me that we have a finance committee process we agreed to so that we can have a process where we don't have to be remaking the new process. It's like a finely tuned motor. If everything operates and fires at the right time, then we can have our debates and come to a logical conclusion.
I have to say, Mr. Chair, it seems very strange that the government is relying on tabling things at the last minute. It doesn't provide for a very good process. I think it runs contrary to much of the rhetoric we heard in 2015 about open government and working with parliamentarians and showing respect for the institution itself.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, it's funny how Mr. Albas talks about committee process, yet it was also these members in the chair when the Conservatives failed to provide more than three witnesses for this process, where we allowed, and in fact sought, additional witnesses from the Conservatives well after the motion in the process. So it's funny how the Conservatives are okay with the process being flexible given situations when it suits them, and openness and transparency when it suits them, but when members want to bring forward amendments that are completely within order, all of sudden they're outraged. I'll remind the member that we actually provided additional time for your witnesses.
On the amendment—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That's what I was just going to say. If we get into a discussion of who said what and what procedure was when, then we'll be at our nine o'clock deadline. If you could stick to the amendment, that would be great.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just didn't think it should be left there on the record without being corrected.
In terms of the amendment, again, I think Mr. Dusseault's suggestion is something that has merit, but I think the issue with the fuel raises concerns in the sense that most in the fishing industry would go to a regular commercial-type fuel station to buy gas while in the farming community it's very specific, so you can deal with that regulation or that exemption.
While I agree with the intention, and I do think we have an alternative that will work, I think it just requires a bit more detail in terms of the implementation.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I have just a brief response.
The member opposite knows that we had a business plan. We actually had committee meetings to discuss how we would go forward. It included some flexibility regarding when witnesses would need to be in. So for her to be using it as a sticking point seems strange, because we had agreed to those things together.
The chair has been here long enough. I'm sure he understands, as the chair, the amount of pressure that this committee has. We have to get these clauses in tonight. However, again, it's not a good process.
I would simply say to government members that if you look like you're tabling things at the last minute for your own bill, to me it shows that you probably haven't given it much consideration. At least I can rest assured of why I did not submit an amendment: it's because I oppose the bill, and I am transparent on that. I just would hope that for a better process, we could all find that if we agree to something, such as getting our amendments in, it should be followed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Albas.
I think we did allow some flexibility on witnesses as well, but I do understand that sometimes governments need to clean up their own legislation.
Mr. Fergus and then Mr. McLeod.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
In a way of trying to be very co-operative, I'd like to take on what Mr. Albas said. I think it's important. The thing that has distinguished this committee, in my year and a bit of serving on it, is the collegiality, the ability of all parties to get to the nub of the issue, and to work out a lot of things through the subcommittee. I can understand how Mr. Albas might feel that the process is a little different today.
On that front, what Monsieur Dusseault has brought forward I think is a laudable modification. The amendment he wants to bring forward is that, in the exemption, not only do we take into account what has been extended to farmers, but to make sure it's extended to fishers. In terms of the intention of what's being brought forward, it's laudable. It's one which I hope all parties would be able to support, if we could seek further clarification for it.
I guess the question that really comes to us is, would it make sense to pass an amendment which is not clear enough? As my colleague Mr. Sorbara had mentioned, it would require more consideration, more specification, or would we have to introduce something differently?
That is why, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, it would be important to seek clarification to modify that amendment. It might be a significant modification, but I think it still gets to the nub of the issue of what Monsieur Dusseault has raised, and what I think all members should want to do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, we'll take a couple of more speakers on this.
Our original motion said five minutes per clause. I said earlier, I think a month ago, that we wouldn't necessarily stick to that in every clause, because some clauses are going to require more discussion.
Mr. McLeod.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Mr. Chair, I want to also talk a little about the amendment and the issue of allowing other sectors into the exempted portion of the bill. Historically, primary producers had a category that included farmers. It also included fishers, the trappers. The independent loggers, I believe, were also part of that.
We don't have a whole lot of farmers in the Northwest Territories, but that's a sector that is starting to grow. We're certainly promoting it. They still need to be able to use purple gas. It's something we don't have in the Northwest Territories yet, but we do have a lot of fishers. The licence numbers and the uptake are growing. We're trying to find ways to include indigenous communities. It's an industry that holds a lot of promise for us. We still largely have a—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
If I could interrupt you for a second, Mr. McLeod, do we have unanimous consent to go to 10 minutes before the vote?