Evidence of meeting #25 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was caron.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
No, I do not want to debate it. I just want a separate vote for this clause.
We can proceed to the vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, that's fine.
(Clause 9 agreed to on division)
(On clause 10)
Are there any comments, or do you just want to have a vote?
Mr. Caron.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I wanted to say that we want to avoid farmers being affected by an artificial increase in taxes as a result of the poor structure that the previous government designed when it privatized the Canadian Wheat Board. It is just that we are disappointed that the government is moving ahead with these various provisions that are designed to confirm the privatization and dismantling of an institution that was designed and built by generations of farmers.
The current government criticized the previous government for this measure. I find it a shame that all it is doing is continuing the work they started.
We are going to vote in favour, because otherwise there would be negative repercussions for farmers. However, we would have liked to see another solution proposed for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Liberal
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I am talking about the Canadian Wheat Board.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any further discussion?
Shall clause 10 carry?
(Clause 10 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to on division)
(On clause 13)
Mr. Caron, you had a point you wanted to raise.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you.
We support the increase in the deduction for residents of the Canadian north in order to help people living in those often remote communities. We know, because it has been made public, that they are facing extremely high prices. Our disappointment with this provision lies in the fact that it is not indexed to inflation, which means that the deduction will be eroded over time.
In short, we are in favour of this provision but we would prefer it to have been indexed.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any further discussion on clause 13?
(Clause 13 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 14 to 21 agreed to on division)
(On clause 22)
Go ahead, Mr. Caron.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
We are opposed to the idea of income splitting. I am not referring to seniors, of course, but to what the Conservatives passed. We simply wanted to publicly express our disappointment with the fact that the government is replacing this measure by another tax-reduction measure, a pseudo-reduction for the middle class whose only effect will be to move money towards the 30% with the highest income and to ignore 70% of Canadians.
We are going to vote in favour of this clause because it does away with income splitting, not for seniors, but for the rest of the population, for couples with children. However, we would have preferred the government to listen more to what we were telling it about reducing taxes for the middle class in Bill C-2.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any further discussion?
I would remind members that if, on some of these clauses, they have some questions they want to raise, there are a lot of officials here, and you're quite free to ask them to come to the table and ask them questions, if you so wish. I'm not sure if members are aware of that, but just ask an official to come to the table and it will be done.
(Clause 22 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 23 to 25 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 26)
Mr. Caron, do you want to mention something?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
(Clause 26 agreed to on division)
(On clause 27)
Do you have any comments, Mr. Caron?
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
We support the measure included in clause 27, but we are concerned by the fact that, despite repeated promises that the details would be provided to us later, there is currently no plan, not even a sign of a plan, to create affordable daycare spaces.
In addition, for most provinces, the new benefit that the government will be proposing will far from make up for the high costs of the measures.
So we are going to vote for this measure, although unfortunately it does not really deal with the question of affordable day care.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any further discussion?
(Clause 27 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 28 to 32 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 33)
We have an amendment put forward by Ms. May.
Elizabeth, go ahead. Do you want to read your amendment?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, it's a bit perplexing for a committee chair the first time they encounter PV.
It stands for “Parti vert”. In the last Parliament, we had got into the habit of using “PV” for “Parti vert” not
Green, “G”, to avoid confusion with government amendments.
That is why my amendments have the letters PV.
I will refer to the amendment very briefly. You are familiar, of course, with the testimony of the Canadian Teachers' Federation at this committee.
Liberal
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Just for clarification, does the amendment have to be moved by a committee member?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm not moving it.
Let me clarify. I'm not an independent member. I'm a member of Parliament for the Green Party of Canada.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm here based on a motion this committee passed, over my objection. The terms of the motion should be familiar to all of you because you passed it. The motion was drafted by the Harper PMO in the previous Parliament and it requires that I be here if I want to submit amendments because I'll no longer be able to provide my amendments at report stage. Each committee has passed an identical motion, and my amendments are deemed to have been moved. I do not have the power to move them. I don't have the power to vote, and it is entirely for the purpose of depriving me of my rights at report stage.
I will put my objection on the record once again. That's why I'm here, and I get to speak briefly to each amendment. I hope I still have some time.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
This is a very salutary change in the tax code. I want to make it clear that I'm very supportive of introducing the concept that eligible educators, as described in subdivision A.4, school supplies tax credit, are allowed to submit their receiptable expenses as described under “eligible supplies expense”. It's a very well-drafted section. The only problem is the suggestion that teachers might have to obtain from their employer a written certificate to attest to the eligibility of the expenses and that it was a proper deduction.
The Teachers' Federation would like this bill improved by amending it such that the requirement for a written certificate from employers be removed.
My amendment does exactly that. It removes proposed subsection 122.9(3) that creates a possibility, though not a requirement at all times, that the educator obtain a certificate from his or her employer.
Liberal