Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We obviously had a lot of time to hear from the stakeholders during our consultations on the bill, so I won't relitigate that issue, or the fact that the tax is coming in. We agree on many things in this room, but on this one I know we disagree. I am in favour of having the wealthy pay the taxes that are owed. In general, I think we need to be focused on actually enforcing the tax code that we have on all individuals and corporations, before we bring on more taxes. That's perhaps a different discussion.
I don't believe it will just be the wealthy who pay in this instance, like my colleague Mr. Albas. It's the workers and individuals who rely on these industries for their livelihood. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, as an example, has raised some concerns.
Given that we obviously knew about the ideological differences on this tax, the CPC amendments in this section were done in a constructive way to help mitigate some of those impacts. When we get to them, I would be happy to give the rationale. At least the last one, which was provided yesterday on the thresholds but has since been updated.... From a principled perspective, if we are going to be increasing excise tax on items on the basis of inflation every year, surely when we impose taxes on goods on a threshold value we should make the same kinds of concessions or acknowledgements that inflation actually makes that $100,000-a-year threshold significantly different in 10 years from what it is today. That's the rationale behind indexing the thresholds to inflation. I think it's fairly reasonable, but I recognize and respect members' opinions on that. I'm encouraged to hear Mr. Blaikie on the motion, asking the government to provide some additional details on the economic impact. That would be a constructive way that we could hear from government on the impacts of this tax.
I hope that before we rise for the summer we'll have a vote on that motion, which I think is maybe the second-best option for us to get some more details, to give some comfort to the industry and to the people in my community of Simcoe North and others who are affected. I appreciate that co-operation. I think there is some precedent for that, by the way, in previous Parliaments. Instead of trying to amend the bill, perhaps we can get some more information from the government on this front. I would very much look forward to that information and just point out that many jurisdictions I have looked at, and that many have looked at, have actually walked back versions of their luxury tax, because of the economic impact. That's obviously something I'm very concerned about and interested to get the government's opinion on. We'll obviously move these amendments in good faith, but certainly appreciate members letting us know where they stand. We look forward to the ongoing discussion.