Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Okay. We'll suspend for a minute.
Okay. That was a good minute.
We're back. I do see a hand up.
MP Dzerowicz.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Chambers for putting something forward that I think we are open to. Just because we want to make sure what the intention is, I'm going to sort of propose—
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We do need unanimous consent to continue any of this conversation, or else we're going right to clause-by-clause. If we have unanimous consent.... I see thumbs up here. I see MP Ste-Marie with a thumbs-up. Thank you very much, on screen. Everybody else?
4:35 p.m.
An hon. member
Just five minutes, whatever you want.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Look, we are going to go to our motion. We're going to clause-by-clause in five minutes. That will be at 4:40 on my watch.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Where are we right now?
I was actually going to read out a statement that we are very comfortable with. It is that the amendments be deemed moved and that the committee provide 15 minutes for a representative of each recognized party to provide their views on Bill C-47, as well as the amendments to the bill. During this time, no other motions can be moved, nor can questions be put to the representative of each party, and the chair and clerk be empowered to enforce the 15-minute speaking slot.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.
MP Chambers, I see a thumbs-up. Are you going to speak to this? No.
Do we have unanimous consent for what has just been put on the table?
4:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you very much for that. We do have unanimous consent.
Have you received it clerk? Okay. Could we get that so that everybody's clear?
MP Dzerowicz, if you could just repeat it. You don't have to send it in writing. Don't worry. Just repeat it.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I will.
It is that the amendments be deemed moved and that the committee provide 15 minutes for a representative of each recognized party to provide their views on Bill C-47, as well as the amendments to the bill. During this time, no other motions can be moved, nor can questions be put to the representative of each party, and the chair and clerk be empowered to enforce the 15-minute speaking slot.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Just to clarify, MP Dzerowicz, are you asking for these 15 minutes right at the start, right now?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Okay. It's right at the start. We're clear now.
With unanimous consent to do this, for the 15 minutes, we are going to go in the order that we always go when we do our rounds of questions. We're going to start with the Conservatives. Then we'll go to the Liberals, then the Bloc and then the NDP, if everybody is okay with that. That is how we're going to start.
Do the Conservatives have somebody up and ready to go?
MP Lawrence for 15 minutes, please.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I won't dive too deep into this, but I share everyone's sense of disappointment that the mistrust has reached these levels.
I'll jump into the amendments because time is short.
The first I'd like to talk about is with respect to.... Of course, this is a huge document. It's $490 billion, and we have 15 minutes, but I'm going to talk about a couple of areas that I believe deserve some attention and that I'm familiar with as well, which are around tax policy.
There are a couple of principles of fundamental tax fairness that this budget implementation act violates. I'll start with the Excise Tax Act. I think it is a good step by the government to limit the amount of increase, but the principle behind it is so very troubling and undemocratic. It runs anti the very basics of tax policy and democracy, I might add.
What happens with the excise tax is that it increases every year. That is a tax increase on Canadians who engage in drinking beer, which many Canadians like to do, and there's no ability—no accountability—for Parliament to say yes or no with respect to it. It has sort of slipped underneath the veil of darkness because there hasn't been high inflation in recent years. However, thanks to this government's high-deficit, high-spending agenda, we saw inflation increase dramatically, which then led to—because this is tied to inflation—a dramatic increase in the excise tax.
We actually saw inflation go up again in the latest report. What happens is that, without the consent of Parliament—which is, of course, the people's representative—the government is appropriating funds for individuals performing the terrible act of going to their local grocery store, LCBO or SAQ and buying a case of beer or a bottle of wine.
In that scenario, perhaps it's only a couple of dollars on that beer or that wine, but it's the principle behind it that is so very troubling—that we would engage in taxation without representation, because that's what that is. It's giving a large tax increase, a large amount of revenue, to the government simply because of inflation. In fact, it's rewarding the government for its own poor economic record, because the higher inflation goes, the more revenue the government will receive. We saw revenues overflow, and even with that large amount, we still get large deficits and large debts.
I'll move from there to another troubling principle. Once again, it's the principle that matters, not so much the subject. This is the section within the BIA that calls for the application of retroactive taxation, and not just by a year or two years or five years or 10 years. It goes back 30 years. For those of you for whom it is unfamiliar, it is of course with respect to the banks and the application of GST and HST on certain monies that they make with respect to the charges of credit cards. The actual subject of the matter is not particularly important relative to the overall concept or the principle of it.
What happens is that, when we pass laws, those laws, by principle, are the rule of law. It doesn't matter what Philip put on the record or what Sophie put on the record beforehand. It doesn't even matter what we thought the bill was going to be. It's actually what the legislation is. It is then the courts who get to decide how the law is interpreted. It's a very basic tenet of law, and it's a very basic tenet of democracy that the rule of law is what we put in writing.
It's what separates democracies from authoritarian states, because in authoritarian states, the leader can go and say, “Do you know what? Just kidding, actually, we meant the law to mean this.” In Canada and other advanced democracies, when you write something, when that becomes law, at that point, the legislators then pass that law on to the judiciary for their interpretation, so whatever happens happens. If a legislator wants to change the law because they're unhappy with a decision, they can do that, but it's nearly always done prospectively.
When I asked Ms. Gwyer of the Department of Finance to name a single case where retroactive taxation had been put in place, she could not name one. Thirty years—that's what separates an authoritarian regime in its application of the law from an advanced democracy, where once that law is made there is certainty so that those individuals will go out and plan their lives based on the rules that exist at the time. Certainly, there could be different interpretations of the rules, and that's for the judiciary to decide, but lawmakers in general won't go back to change the rules of the game halfway through the game. This is a very basic fundamental principle, not just of tax law but of law in general.
This change proposed by the budget implementation act sets a dangerous precedent. It says that, regardless of the rules and despite the law in force for decades at the time, the government can, at its own behest or otherwise, go back and actually change the rules of the game more than halfway through the game—in fact, decades through the game. People plan their lives on this certainty in law.
The challenging part is that Canada is, of course, amongst the lowest, and predicted to be the worst, with respect to capital investment. We, in many ways, are an economy unfortunately in decline, and that's due in part at least to the lack of economic and capital investment. Our manufacturing inventory is not being updated at the rate we need. We are not seeing the capital investment that is required to keep a modern economy moving. Right now, change is exponential with artificial intelligence and other technologies that are coming online, so our country needs capital investment more than ever. Because we're not replacing our capital stock, that doesn't just hurt us for today. Some of these pieces of equipment will be online for 10, 15 or 20 years, so as we fall further and further behind, it gets to be almost a generational problem of capital investment. Some of this money will come domestically, and that's terrific. Some of this will come from investors from abroad, who would hopefully see a Canadian market that would be an excellent choice to invest in.
Unfortunately, when a government creates uncertainty, as they will with this budget by setting a precedent that, even for laws that are decades old, they can go back and change the game and they can go back and change the rules, this will no doubt have.... In fact, in talking to stakeholders from far and wide, many discussed the fact that it's this uncertainty that would be a concern to investors in their business.
You can imagine making a substantial investment—maybe of millions, maybe of tens of millions, maybe even billions of dollars—and you're counting on a certain law being in place. If they want to change the law going forward, fine, give those actors notice and they can go ahead and make their changes prospectively. However, going back retroactively might mean that you have an inability to make decisions because you were counting on the rules of the game staying the same—and if not, with notice for future changes.
This will have a chilling effect on individuals and companies from around the world and their willingness to invest in Canada at a time when Canada needs that investment most.
We're struggling with respect to innovation. We have an innovation gap with respect to most of our advanced economic peers, and the root cause is capital investment.
We also have a productivity gap. Despite having the best workers in the world—we have incredible talent here in Canada—we are amongst the lowest with respect to productivity. We're well behind the United States of America, Switzerland, Ireland and many other developed economies. This is extremely challenging.
To introduce uncertainty into our economy is baffling, quite frankly. That this would be the time, for relatively small gain in tax dollars, to put in additional uncertainty when we need capital investment to bridge that innovation and productivity gap is baffling.
All of this has resulted in our having the lowest economic growth per capita, 0.8% over the last 10 years. What that translates into is not just a statistic; that has affected Canadians' lives, because now we have double or even triple the food bank usage.
Those were a couple of the amendments that Conservatives put forward. We look forward to having a robust discussion with respect to the amendments from the other sides.
Once again, I will conclude by saying that I share everyone's disappointment at this table. Certainly I think there's a lot of blame to go around, and that disappointment in the way this committee has evolved should be shared by everyone.
What I won't do is in any way apologize for being the opposition. That's our role. As I said earlier, we don't work for the Liberal Party of Canada. I work for the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South. This government's economic record after eight years is atrocious. We have high deficits, high debt, high inflation and high interest rates. We have the worst growth since the 1930s. Our job is not to cheer the Liberal Party on as it drives our economy into the ditch. It's our job to yell, “Stop!”, and that's what we're going to do.
I will never apologize for speaking out for the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South and saying, quite frankly, the truth. I'm going to speak truth to power, Mr. Chair, because that's my job. I make no apologies for that whatsoever. The economy is in a challenging situation. I talk to so many constituents. Even the food bank chair in your own riding said that the situation on the ground is terrifying.
If, after eight years of economic failures, Conservatives are not sitting there cheering on, helping you press the accelerator to drive our economy off the cliff.... I don't understand that, and I make no apologies for telling you to stop. Stop trying to ruin our economy through the unbelievable deficits, debts and challenges that you're putting on Canadians.
We live in the greatest country in the world. We have the greatest people. The only thing stopping us from realizing our potential is the Liberal Party and this government.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Lawrence.
Now we'll go to the Liberals and PS Beech, for 15 minutes, please.
May 29th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
While I don't agree with all the points that were just stated, it was refreshing to actually hear some of MP Lawrence's reflections on the bill that we are debating. It is disappointing to me that this is the only opportunity we're all going to have to engage on this. I hope that going forward we're going to find ways to engage in more constructive ways, so that some of Mr. Lawrence's good ideas can find their way into future legislation.
We don't expect a cheerleader in the opposition. We merely expect a reasonable working relationship. Unfortunately we haven't had that for the last little while, but I am an eternal optimist. Mr. Lawrence and I have had many good conversations about many important issues, and I think some of our best work is potentially ahead of us. I'll continue to be optimistic about that.
I'm not optimized, necessarily, towards this 15-minute summary, because that wasn't initially the plan, and we're optimized towards individual clause-by-clause, but I will do my best to provide some coverage on the 686 clauses that we are set to vote on, and then maybe give some concluding thoughts if there is still time.
As members know, we've already carried clauses 2 to 6. With regard to clauses 7 to 70, we are in favour. On clause 71, we are opposed. On clauses 72 to 112, we are in favour.
The first government amendment is on clause 113. This is a coordinating amendment. All members around this table, and in the chamber, for that matter—I'm going to try to continue to focus on the positive—agreed that it would be a good idea to get Canadians the grocery benefit in advance and to get provinces and territories $2 billion in health transfers in advance. This amendment simply takes this out of this BIA, since we have already delivered those funds through another legislative mechanism.
We continue with clauses 114 to 117, of which we are in favour. That brings us to clause 118, which is the Bloc Québécois's first amendment. The first and second both have to do with GST and how it applies to crypto mining. In general, we believe that crypto miners should be paying GST. Where it gets complicated, of course, is when we're talking about the data providers that are providing the technical hardware and usage—the computing power—for that mining. We don't think they should be held to that unless they're actually mining themselves. I've sent some notes to my friend Gabriel regarding the reasons we're opposed to his amendments, but I also believe, through discussions with him, that we're trying to accomplish the same thing. I think we're going to end up in a good place.
That would take us through to clauses 119 to 123, which we are in favour of. That brings us to amendment CPC-1 and a number of amendments that have to do with the excise tax. We consulted with industry professionals from across the country. We heard that this has been a very challenging year, as it has been for many different industries across the country, but it has been for this one in particular. We listened to that feedback, which is why we're very proud to support a 2% reduction in the increase to the excise tax this year. We have also examined the methodology by which the Conservatives are proposing to go forward with this, and there are some unintended consequences, including refunding some of our largest brewers and resetting rates to what they were several years ago when we talk about being retroactive. That's something this would actually do, so we are opposed.
There are a number of amendments that speak to that. I think I will move from there to amendment BQ-5. That would mean we support clauses 127 to 136. Amendment BQ-5 is on clause 137. This has to do specifically with the Bank Act. We believe the authority sought under this amendment already exists, therefore we are opposing it. It's not because we necessarily disagree with it, but rather because we want to keep legislation clean.
That would bring us to clauses 138 through 209, which we are in favour of.
The next amendment is CPC-13, which is adjusting for the Criminal Code. I think this language, if I remember correctly, might have reflected a vote that we had in a private member's bill a while back that we all voted against—except the Conservatives. The reason we're opposing this, the actual reason, is that we believe this also is duplicative legislation. CPC-14 we oppose.
Clauses 211 to 241 we support.
The second government coordinating amendment in the last of our amendments is clause 242. I've already stated the reasons for that. That would bring us to a number of clauses that we oppose but I'm not going to comment on, just for the sake of time.
I would go all the way down to clauses 243 to 246 in the middle of the CPC clauses we do support. There are no amendments attached to them.
If we zoom down to CPC-18, this has to do with equalization and reporting. It is our position that any changes to equalization or the reporting of equalization need to be done in conjunction and consultation with the premiers in the provinces and territories. We would not support any measures without that consultation and their full support.
That would then take us to—pardon me, this is a bit of a distance from where I want to speak to you—another set of Conservative amendments that we will be opposing, until we get to clause 251 through to—and this is a big chunk— clause 444.
I'm seven minutes in, and it looks like we might actually make it.
Where does that bring us down to? Yes, there are still the CPC amendments that have to do with interswitching. I believe we're split on those.
We then carry down from clause 447 to clause 454, which we are in favour of.
Then there are a number of NDP amendments around air passenger protection regulations. It's unfortunate, because there are a number of things that are in here that we think are reasonable. There are a number of things in here, though, that we can't support, and we were actually planning to work through this as part of the clause-by-clause process and perhaps see some things get passed. Without the ability to have some sort of constructive debate, though, we're not going to be able to do that. Hopefully, we'll be able to continue to work with the NDP to figure out how to improve legislation going forward.
We support clauses 456 to 458, clause 460 and clauses 462 to 464, which do not have amendments, as well as clauses 466 to 470, and then clause 472 through to clause 632.
That would bring us to Bloc-6, I believe, which has to do with the reporting via the chairperson versus the board. Substantially, reporting ends up entirely at the board, so we find this to be somewhat duplicative as well, and we will be opposing it.
This would take us then to Bloc-7, which is about the standards for attending the EI tribunal either in person and the options thereof.... Now, I think this is another situation in which we're in agreement with the Bloc, but that we don't necessarily think the language of the clause being proposed is accomplishing what we want. Our general principle, given the consultations that we had over the summer, is that proponents—workers—should have the flexibility to appear as they need to, and that a virtual option should always be available. I believe that's also the Bloc's point of view, but we're not necessarily sure that the particular writing of this clause actually accomplishes that. I think we're going to end up in a good place anyway.
Then we would support clauses 635 through 662. This would bring us to CPC-22, which is a cost analysis for changes to the EI programming.
The only thing I would say about this is that it was never meant to be a cost-saving measure. It was supposed to ensure that we had better representation and better results for workers. We think this amendment is speaking against workers.
That would bring us to clauses 664 through 681, which we support. We support schedule 1 and schedule 2; we support the short title and the title itself, and, of course, we support the bill itself.
With that, Mr. Chair, seeing that I have a little less than four minutes left, I will use the remainder of my time to address some things that our government has done, both through this bill and through previous legislation, which I think are important for Canadians.
Obviously the budget itself is focused on a few major things. One was an unprecedented investment in health care. Two billion dollars of that has already gone through, but there is significantly more provided by the actions that our government has taken. There is a massive investment in the next stage of investing in the clean jobs of tomorrow and ensuring that we meet our climate change targets while creating good, high-paying, quality, sustainable jobs in every region of our country. The third thing, of course, that we focused on, while dealing with inflation, was making life more affordable.
I want to detail some of the measures we have taken to make life more affordable, but first I want to provide a bit of economic context.
First, despite what my friend MP Lawrence has stated, we fully understand that there are difficult times in Canada. There are definitely difficult global times that we as a government have been dealing with. We just came out of a global pandemic. There is a war in Europe, which has had a significant impact on food prices and energy prices and a massive effect on countries around the world. Despite that, we have been able to keep inflation lower than many of our peers have, including the United States and our peer countries in Europe. We've had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 while having the lowest deficit and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio while we have created almost one million jobs since the pandemic.
We recognize that things are tough. We need to invest in making life more affordable and in making new opportunities. This budget does that.
It's not just the grocery rebate. It's dental care, letting children get their teeth fixed. Up to nine million Canadians are going to have the benefit of the dental care program. It's eliminating interest on loans for students while increasing grants by 40 per cent. It's lowering fees and taxes for small businesses, including $1 billion in saving on credit cards alone over the next five years. It's making sure that we improve the Canada workers benefit, which will provide up to $2,400 in support for our workers for up to 4.2 million families. It's decreasing the cost of child care so that families have the option to rejoin the workforce when they feel it's the right time, and then further lowering that to $10 per day by 2025. It's indexing all of the support programs we have invested in over the years, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit and the Canada pension plan, OAS and GIS to inflation. That does lag a bit now, but those increases are coming to match inflation and make sure people have the resources they need. It's the climate action incentive, which, in jurisdictions where it applies, is making life more affordable for eight out of 10 Canadian families. All of these combined, including our anti-poverty strategy, have lifted 2.7 million Canadians out of poverty.
Conservatives like to accuse Liberals of saying it has never been so good. We are never the ones who say that. We understand that these are challenging times, but we will continue to take an evidence-based approach to make sure we are setting up Canada and Canadians for success. That is exactly what this budget does.
I want to thank the officials who are in the room for the very hard work they have done to put forward such a great budget. It's unfortunate that we weren't able to hear more from them, but hope springs eternal, and maybe next year we will.
With that, Mr. Chair, I am happy to cede the floor.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, PS Beech.
Officials are not in the room, but we do thank them. There are many of them, and they are here virtually, to help if needed.
We are now moving to the Bloc and to MP Ste-Marie for 15 minutes.
Go ahead, please, if you are ready.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Good afternoon, everyone.
I'm speaking to you through a House-approved standing microphone. Let me know if there are any sound problems. I also have my micro-headset for backup.
I'll try to be brief in presenting my amendments.
As Mr. Beech mentioned, amendment BQ‑1 concerns the taxation of businesses that own large servers, with major processing capacity and very high-speed fibre service, which are located in Quebec and Canada and that hire out their services. When those services are hired by a foreign business capable of carrying on mining, the concern for the industry in Quebec and Canada is that they may no longer have access to the same benefits as businesses in other sectors. Consequently, amendment BQ‑1 would specify and ensure that, if a business leases its computers for activities, it will be treated in the same way as other businesses.
This is important because this rapidly developing sector will help all kinds of research sectors. We've even heard talk about artificial intelligence. I want to thank Mr. Beech for all the follow‑up he has done with me on this issue. According to him, and according to the government's action line, these businesses are targeted by this division. However, that's not the industry's opinion. So I encourage you to support amendment BQ‑1, which would clarify matters and ensure that our industry remains competitive.
I won't present amendment BQ‑2. I had concerns about the admissibility of amendment BQ‑1. I know that our chair, Mr. Fonseca, is very strict about the admissibility of amendments. However, Mr. Méla reassures me, and it's quite possible that Mr. Fonseca will allow amendment BQ‑1. Consequently, amendment BQ‑2 won't be presented. In any case, it wouldn't completely achieve its objective. It would've had to be amended, which is no longer possible.
That brings me to amendments BQ‑3 and BQ‑4, which concern the excise tax on fruit-based alcohol products.
This takes us back to the debate on last year's budget implementation bill. The government said that it would henceforth be taxing all kinds of wines because Australia had sued Canada before the World Trade Organization, the WTO, and had won its case. We said that Australia's suit concerned only wine made from grapes. In Quebec, wine is wine made from grapes. Cider and mead go by different names. We wanted to exclude all alcohol products made from small fruits, honey and maple syrup. However, the amendment was ruled inadmissible. We very soon managed to exclude cider and mead, but all other alcohol products, such as ciders made from pear, apple, apple combined with pear and other small fruits, weren't covered by the exclusion that we obtained last year, and the producers are subject to full compensation. This makes no sense. For a year now, I've been hounding and repeating to the minister, Ms. Freeland, that the industry wants her to correct this error. We hope that will be done.
We are introducing amendments BQ‑3 and BQ‑4 in order to clarify that alcohol products, wines made from other small fruits, cider made from pears, or anything else, such as a maple syrup product, aren't targeted by the WTO judgment, which solely concerned wine made from grapes. I sincerely hope that Mr. Beech and all my colleagues can remind Ms. Freeland and her team to resolve the matter. It's urgent. It's extremely important. These are small artisans. Whether or not this tax applies can make the difference between a viable business or a failing one. This is very important.
These amendments may well be ruled inadmissible. Once again, I hope the chair of our committee will be magnanimous. Otherwise, I urge Mr. Beech to speak to Ms. Freeland and her team to resolve this, please. I realize that billions of dollars aren't at stake here, but it would really make a difference for these businesses.
Those are the concerns that amendments BQ‑3 and BQ‑4 are intended to address.
Now I'll turn to amendment BQ‑5.
When we heard from the representatives of Option consommateurs, they told us that a great innovation that appears in Bill C‑47 would pose a problem. Currently, in a dispute between a client and the client's bank, the case may be reviewed before a commissioner, but the commissioner's decision is only a recommendation. Consequently, amendment BQ‑5 supports what the Option consommateurs representatives told us, which was that the recommendation should be made binding. I obviously hope this amendment will be supported.
Amendments BQ‑6 and BQ‑7 concern employment insurance. We aren't seeking an in‑depth reform, but what we're proposing isn't in Bill C‑47. The people concerned by employment insurance generally welcome what's in the bill on this matter.
Amendments BQ‑6 and BQ‑7 propose minor amendments to improve this part. Suggestions have been made by Quebec's four main unions, the CSN, FTQ, CSQ and the CSD, the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, which came to speak to us on behalf of the group. The amendments are minor but important.
The aim of amendment BQ‑6 is to increase transparency. Its purpose is to ensure that the joint group operates properly. Currently under Bill C‑47, management reports to the chairperson of the commission, who provides a summary to all members. We are requesting—this is the unions' proposal—that management be directly accountable to the commission as a whole. There would thus be more transparency and openness than there would be with an intermediary.
Mr. Beech said his party didn't think that was appropriate. However, the unions feel that management should be directly accountable to the commission as a whole and not through an intermediary.
We're saying that we want to go back to a regionalization of appeals. In the part amended by amendment BQ‑7, if the parties say that an appeal may be heard virtually, we can do it. We're saying that not all the parties to the matter need to be consulted, just the person who brings the appeal. For example, a person filing an appeal in an unemployment case may want to be heard in person rather than have the case heard virtually.
Once again, according to Quebec's major unions, Bill C‑47 is drafted in a vague manner. For example, a person residing in Sept-Îles who wants a case to be heard in person, whereas the other parties prefer that it be heard virtually, could be heard virtually. That wouldn't achieve the desired objective. This amendment would ensure that the person can be heard in person in his or her region.
I hope I have clearly presented the Bloc Québécois' various amendments.
Having said that, I want to draw your attention to certain points. First, I will support the NDP's amendments because I think they're very constructive. The same is true of those of the Conservatives, except those respecting equalization. This seems to be related to today's election in Alberta. Failing anything better, we want a good equalization system. However, it's being said that the equalization process would be delayed, except as regards stabilization payments, which is oil company equalization. We don't agree with that, but it's fine to change the name. We also support the Conservatives' amendments respecting the excise tax, among other things.
As regards the Liberal Party's two amendments, the idea here is, first, to take away the GST check, which is just grocery money, since that's already included in Bill C‑46. However, we want to keep it since officials told us it wouldn't mean a second payment in any case. However, if that's true, I would nevertheless support it since I think the less well-off do need it.
The same is true for health. Ottawa is giving the provinces a sixth of the money they requested, but we'd have a chance to get $2 billion more if the Liberal amendment were defeated. It wouldn't be automatic, but it would be a step in the right direction.
The Bloc Québécois believes that Ottawa should make its proper contribution to health. We will therefore vote against this Liberal Party amendment.
Otherwise, as regards division 9 on equalization, we recently received correspondence from certain officials who said that adopting this division would result in hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for Quebec, without it being consulted. The Bloc Québécois therefore opposes this division.
Mr. Blaikie invited the Comité des représentants des transporteurs ferroviaires. So there's a whole debate going on. Unfortunately, we couldn't get to the bottom of things in order to form an opinion. For the moment, however, the railway carriers have convinced me, and, like Mr. Blaikie, I'll vote against Bill C‑47's divisions regarding this matter.
I have a final point to make. Under section 510.2 of Bill C‑47, which runs to hundreds of pages and more than 600 clauses, “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God” would officially be made King of Canada.
It is a rule of Parliament that we may not be irreverential toward the Crown or the monarchy.
Thus, instead of preparing a short, clearly presented bill that would be debated in the House, we are concealing the fact that we are providing for a change of sovereigns in a budget implementation bill that will affect a range of statutes.
I think this is unacceptable. I therefore encourage members of this committee to reject this clause in order to force the government to present this matter in a regular bill so that it's done properly in an open and transparent manner.
On this subject, I would like to use my speaking time to ask the committee clerk, Mr. Roger, a question.
According to tradition, when a government appoints persons to unelected positions, opposition members may summon those persons to appear before a parliamentary committee to speak with them and get to know them and their duties.
Consequently, I would have liked to welcome King Charles III to the Standing Committee on Finance since, under Bill C‑47, he would be named, and not elected, King of Canada. There is nothing more hereditary than that appointment.
As it is customary to be able to question appointees in committee, I asked, more than one month ago, that we invite King Charles III and his little prince to come and testify.
I would therefore ask Mr. Roger whether we have received any news from Buckingham Palace.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.
I'll look to our excellent, wise clerk, Alexandre Roger.
Can you answer the question?
5:20 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Alexandre Roger
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I called the Governor General's office, and they told me to send an email to them, which I did. I got no response to that email. I also called Great Britain, because if you go on the website of the King, it says the only way to reach them is to call them directly from overseas.
That's what I did. I left a message, and no one called back.
Unless I appear in person at the residence of the Governor General of Canada, I don't have a lot more opportunities to communicate with those people, since we don't have a specific email address.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Chair, I want to thank our two excellent clerks for all the work they do and all the effort they have made to respond to my request. I am very grateful to them for that.
Perhaps we should have found an old parchment and sent it off by horse-drawn carriage or carrier pigeon. Who knows? This reminds us once again that we are elected and that we serve the people. We want to represent them, and that's our role.
However, as a result of a tradition that we have inherited, we find ourselves dealing with a representative of the Anglican Church who won't even answer the elected representatives of his people. Under Bill C‑47, that representative would be made King of Canada. I think that raises some serious questions.
Once again, I invite the members of the committee to do as I do and vote against clause 510.2 of Bill C‑47, under which Charles III would be made King of Canada, so that we can have another, proper bill.
With that, I hope that all will go well. I would have liked to be with you in person, but I unfortunately could not.
Thank you, everyone.
