Evidence of meeting #27 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt clauses 48 through 70?
(Clauses 48 to 70 agreed to on division)
(On clause 71)
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I move that Bill C-15, in clause 71, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 164 with the following:
taxation years that end after December 30, 2024.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Shall G-2 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 71 as amended agreed to on division)
There are no amendments proposed for the remainder of part 1, clauses 72 to 125. Is there unanimous consent to group them for the vote?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Shall clauses 72 to 125 carry?
(Clauses 72 to 125 agreed to on division)
(On clause 126)
Part 2 is “Digital Services Tax (Repeals and Other Measures)”. There are no amendments proposed in part 2, clauses 126 to 158.
Is there unanimous consent to group them for the vote?
Bloc
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's nice to be back here at the finance committee.
I would like to request unanimous consent from my colleagues to be able to speak briefly to this. I don't have an amendment for it, but I would like to urge my colleagues to vote against these clauses. I would like to have an opportunity to briefly make the case for why that is.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, colleagues.
When the government of the time announced this measure in budget 2021, it described these measures as essential for “ensuring that corporations in all sectors, including digital corporations, pay their fair share of tax on the money they earn by doing business in Canada.”
We all know that the Donald Trump administration objected, and shortly after that, our government pledged to abandon that measure entirely. Leaving aside the question of having to deal with Mr. Trump—we have great empathy for any government that has to do that—I would argue that this is not the best policy.
The digital services tax was specifically designed to ensure that the largest U.S. tech giants—companies like those led by Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg—contribute fairly to the money they earn from the Canadian economy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that it would raise $7.2 billion over five years. It's revenue that we think could be used to support public services, infrastructure and programs that Canadians rely on.
In conclusion, we believe that adopting this measure means that we are walking away from billions of dollars of revenue and giving up a tool meant to level the playing field for Canadian tech businesses, all without really achieving any benefit for Canada in return. I would respectfully request that my colleagues defeat this provision of the budget.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
For the purpose of brevity, may I please be associated with every comment just made by Mr. Davies? Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Are we able to move now to a recorded division on clause 126?
(Clause 126 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)
(Clause 127 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)
(Clause 128 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)
Do we have unanimous consent to group clauses 129 to 158 for a single vote?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Shall these clauses carry?
(Clauses 129 to 158 agreed to on division)
(On clause 159)
We are moving on to part 3, “Amendments to the Excise Tax Act (GST/HST), the Underused Housing Tax Act, the Select Luxury Items Tax Act and Other Related Texts”.
There are no amendments proposed to part 3, clauses 159 to 176. Is there unanimous consent to group them for the vote?
Mr. Davies, please go ahead.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Once again, I would ask the indulgence of my colleagues to speak briefly and urge my colleagues to defeat clauses 167 to 170, if I may.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
The decision to repeal the underused housing tax during a housing crisis is a difficult decision for us to understand. When this measure was first introduced, the Liberal government—a previous one, but of the same hue—described it as “a national, tax-based measure targeting the unproductive use of domestic housing that is owned by non-resident, non-Canadians.”
They argued that it would ensure that foreign owners who use Canada as a place to passively store wealth in housing “pay their fair share”, and it's working. There's a suite of measures adopted by this government and provincial governments, including mine in British Columbia, that are working to curb foreign investor demand in Canada's residential housing market, and it is working to reduce prices.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that the underused housing tax will raise almost $700 million over five years. We believe that repealing it means not only walking away from hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue that could be used to support affordable housing, municipal infrastructure and public priorities; it also means reversing the progress that has been made by adding demand to an already saturated housing market.
Finally, it also removes a policy lever designed to discourage vacant foreign investor-held properties at a time when Canadians are still struggling with some of the worst housing affordability challenges in our country's history.
I urge my colleagues to defeat these clauses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
Is there unanimous consent to group these clauses for a vote?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Shall clauses 159 to 176 carry?
(Clauses 159 to 176 agreed to on division)
For part 4, “First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act”, there are no proposed amendments to clauses 177 to 190.
Do we have unanimous consent to group these clauses?
