That's correct, sir.
Evidence of meeting #46 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was municipalities.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #46 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was municipalities.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Boating BC Association
Yes, there is. That's the National Marine Manufacturers Association. I also have counterparts across Canada in Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Were any of those counterparts across the country or your national association ever consulted specifically on the imposition of the luxury tax and the impact it would have on your industry?
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Boating BC Association
Thank you for that.
Through the chair, we have had the opportunity to speak with senior staff in the finance department on the implementation of the tax through the consultation process.
Quite frankly, there's been very limited feedback or back-and-forth with respect to some of the requests we've made on the implementation of the tax.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Are you aware of whether the government ever conducted a formal economic impact assessment on the impact this tax will have on your industry and the jobs and opportunities it creates?
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Boating BC Association
To our knowledge, it has not. We did an economic impact assessment ourselves. We delivered it to the finance committee and to the Minister of Finance several months ago, showing that there would be a significant negative impact to jobs and to the economy.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
That seems to confirm what the government has also said, which is it did not do such an economic impact assessment. It effectively left it up to your industry to show the harm that would be done. Obviously, they weren't listening; they imposed the tax anyway.
There is one small element, and that is the timing of the implementation of this tax. Neptunus raised the problem of contracts that were entered into before the budget was tabled. Those contracts often have op-out clauses that allow customers to opt out if there's an additional tax imposed. Have you received any assurances from the government that this problem will be addressed?
12:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Boating BC Association
We have not. The date has been moved from April, 2021, to December 31, 2021. We're appreciative of that.
We've been asking for a grandfathering of all contracts until the actual implementation of the tax. There are huge delays in delivery dates for vessels. It's up to over two years for some of the boats coming from Europe and elsewhere, through no fault of our dealers, our brokers or our customers.
We're asking for a grandfathering of limiting the implementation of the tax until it's actually implemented some time later this year.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you.
I have a question for Ms. Sarangi. You mentioned in your comments that rent moratoria had been lifted in some jurisdictions. Housing is typically the biggest cost families will incur. Rent moratoriums, of course, are helpful in assuaging some of those impacts. Can you expand on where these moratoria have now been lifted and the impact it's having on housing in Canada?
12:45 p.m.
National Director, Campaign 2000
Rent moratoriums have been lifted in Ontario. Where I'm located, they've been lifted in Nova Scotia, where we have very active partners working in the area of homelessness. If I'm correct—and I may have to double-check and get back to you and the committee—I believe rent moratoriums have been lifted across the country. With pandemic health restrictions lifting, I think that as of January this year, there are no more rent moratoriums. Unfortunately, a lot of arrears have accumulated, but there's no program to support low-income families to pay those arrears.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you. Thank you, MP Fast.
Now we'll move to the Liberals.
MP Chatel, you have five minutes, please.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Demers and Mr.Boulet, I'd like to mention that according to the data I have, we've invested $4.9 billion in Quebec housing. I don't have the exact numbers for Quebec, but $523 million went to affordable housing in rural communities.
I've had several discussions with my colleagues who represent rural regions, and have noted projects undertaken in my riding. The Rapid Housing Initiative appears to have been much more successful in rural areas than in cities.
Is that what you have found? Under this initiative, is it easier for regional communities to apply for funding, access funds and rapidly implement projects?
12:45 p.m.
President, Fédération québécoise des municipalités
I'm going to ask Mr. Boulet to give more precise figures.
I would nevertheless like to give a clear idea of what constitutes a rural community. When the Federation of Canadian Municipalities talks about rural communities, it is talking about municipalities whose population is under 100,000 residents.
Of Quebec's 1,108 municipalities, only 10 have a population of more than 100,000. Some consider the remaining municipalities to be rural, but in the eyes of many people, Quebec municipalities with a population of 50,000, 75,000 or 80,000, are not necessarily rural communities.
Different people can interpret these figures in different ways. In Quebec, there are not even 100 municipalities with over 25,000 residents…
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Demers.
In the 2022 budget, we banked heavily on the Rapid Housing Initiative.
I'd like to know whether we are on the right track to help municipalities, because the usual programs seem to be more complex. It would appear that owing to the criteria for these programs, small municipalities with fewer than 5,000 residents have trouble obtaining the resources they need to access these programs. On the other hand, I get the impression that the Rapid Housing Initiative has been more successful.
What's your opinion on this?
12:45 p.m.
President, Fédération québécoise des municipalités
My view is that so far, the success rate for municipalities of 5,000 or fewer residents has not been very high.
Mr. Boulet, do you have any more accurate numbers?
12:45 p.m.
Economic Advisor, Fédération québécoise des municipalités
No, we don't have data on this particular initiative. However, we can certainly promise to look at the results of this program and determine whether it has been relatively beneficial compared to what was done before, or what was done for other types of housing.
It would seem to make sense to pay close attention to what's happening in rural and smaller communities, because their circumstances are completely different. In a city, one, two, three, four or even 10 people might be specialists in housing, whereas in a village or a municipality, there may be no one with expertise in this area, except perhaps at the RCM level.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I only have a minute of speaking time left.
The Rapid Housing Initiative focuses on municipalities and groups of municipalities. Direct funding that goes to the municipalities would appear to be the most promising avenue to help them.
Mr. Boulet, what are your observations on this?
12:50 p.m.
Economic Advisor, Fédération québécoise des municipalités
As I said earlier, it's very important to be aligned with what's really happening in the municipalities, which are very different from one another. Mr. Demers alluded to regions with a population of around 100,000. That's a completely different world in terms of the needs of municipalities.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Ms. Chatel.
Members, we have about eight minutes left. As we do on our committee when we don't have enough time for a full round at the end, we divide the time equally among the parties. Looking at the time, I will give about two minutes per party for their final questions.
Starting with the Conservatives, it's MP Chambers, is it...?
No, I'm sorry; it's MP Lawrence.
12:50 p.m.
Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hayne, with respect to the luxury tax, one of the things that surprises me—it's kind of shocking that it exists—is that this government consistently taxes tax.
One of the principles behind tax law across the world is that we tax on a wealth accretion. If someone is doing well, we make them pay back to their society, but there is absolutely no ground, in tax law or otherwise, to tax a tax. That person is already getting penalized. For example, the HST is charged on the carbon tax, which doesn't make any sense—or I got that vice versa, but you understand the point.
One of the reasons the finance ministry has said that they charge this is that it's too hard for them to calculate. Would it be too hard for your members to calculate the difference between charging luxury tax on the HST, or would your members be able to calculate that, since the government can't?
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Boating BC Association
That's one of the four things we're absolutely asking for. We're asking that if the luxury tax is implemented, we don't have the HST—or GST, in the case of B.C.—placed on top of the luxury tax. That's a very simple calculation that businesses do every single day. They separate the net price from the GST and the PST and so on. That's something our members could easily do. It wouldn't require any extra software or anything like that.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Lawrence.
Now it's two minutes for the Liberals. Go ahead, MP Baker.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hayne, I want to clarify something. Throughout this hearing you've been speaking a little bit about the luxury tax or answering questions on it. I think you proposed earlier that if people bought their boat in the U.S., they could avoid the tax. From my reading of it, I think to avoid the tax, a Canadian citizen would have to not only buy the boat in the U.S. but also keep it there and register it there. Is that your understanding of it?
To me what that means is that a company that moves to the U.S. to sell boats to Canadians, which I think was part of the discussion earlier with one of the members.... Even a U.S.-based manufacturer of boats, if they're selling to Canadians, would still be exposed to the tax. In other words, there's no way to avoid the tax. There are no loopholes in this unless a Canadian is willing to buy the boat in the U.S. and keep it there and register it there.
Is that your understanding?