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
Shall clauses 177 to 190 carry?
(Clauses 177 to 190 agreed to on division)
Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I may have been asleep at the switch here. I wanted to speak to the luxury tax. Did we just group those as clauses 171 to 176?
NDP
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Could I have the indulgence of the committee to speak briefly to that?
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
In our view, on the decision to repeal the luxury tax on private jets and yachts, it is difficult to understand the reversal of the principles that were used to justify the measure when it was introduced at the time.
Again, in budget 2021, it was argued, “Those who can afford to buy luxury goods can afford to pay a bit more.” I'm quoting then finance minister Chrystia Freeland. This was especially at a time when ordinary Canadians were making sacrifices to keep the economy afloat. In the New Democrats' view, that logic still holds, yet we're now abandoning the luxury tax on private jets and yachts entirely.
There was some justification that argued the luxury tax costs more to administer than it brings in, but the 2025 budget I think belies that claim. By our calculations, eliminating the tax will cost the government $135 million over five years in lost revenue. The PBO goes even further in estimating that the luxury tax on private jets and boats will raise $207 million over five years.
What makes this decision a little more difficult for us is that unions in the aviation and boating sectors have proposed practical solutions to address the potential industry impacts of these measures. They offered targeted mitigation measures and not a full repeal of the luxury tax. We think it's not wise to scrap it altogether, instead of working with workers and industry to refine the policy.
The result is that this is a policy retreat that gives up hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue at a time when the government really needs it, we think. It abandons a fairness measure aimed at taxing the ultrawealthy, and it ignores constructive proposals put forward by workers and their unions—working with their employers—who are ready to help improve the system rather than dismantle it.
It's already been dealt with, but thank you for the opportunity.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
No problem, Mr. Davies.
(On clause 191)
We've already voted on that measure. We're moving on to part 5, “Various Measures”, and division 1, “High-Speed Rail Network Act”. We have clause 191.
Mr. Garon, do you have an amendment you would like to propose?
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is proposing amendments on this matter. As you know, I've been very vocal on the issue recently, especially regarding the high-speed rail network act and the amendments to the Expropriation Act.
The preamble is important. I am the member for Mirabel. Everyone knows the story of what happened in Mirabel. Two weeks ago, Parliament unanimously passed a motion calling on the government to never repeat what it did in 1969. It's not just farmers who are affected, but when a rail line runs through the land of a farmer, or someone else, and the process—not just the train—moves at high speed, there is a risk that people's rights will be violated.
This is for the people of my riding, the people at the Union des producteurs agricoles and Quebeckers: It's important for everyone to understand that this legislation will create two classes of citizens. On one hand, you have all Canadians, who, for the purposes of a public project, will be subject to the Expropriation Act. On the other hand, you have the Canadians and Quebeckers who will be impacted by the high-speed rail project and who will have lesser rights. Adopting this clause as is will create second-class citizens in Quebec, within the federation. That's precisely what this bill does.
As I've said time and time again—and I've made no bones about it—the Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of a defining project for a modern transportation system. The issue isn't whether we are for or against high-speed rail. However, when it comes to managing a project like this one, best practices dictate that it move only as fast as engineering capacity and social licence allow. Currently, though, the project is moving as quickly as politicians and the Prime Minister can make announcements.
I firmly believe that, if the high-speed rail network act proposed in Bill C‑15 is passed as is, it will undermine the project. A project as ambitious as this one, a project that will span a thousand kilometres and take a long time to build, cannot be carried out without social licence.
I'm getting to the amendment, but my explanation will save time when we get to the following amendments.
Furthermore, the government has delegated all the dirty work to an offshoot of Via Rail that is free from the scrutiny of Parliament, the oversight of the Auditor General and the analysis of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The government told the people at Alto to go out and expropriate land as quickly as possible, washing its hands of the whole thing.
For those reasons, I am proposing a set of amendments that I'm convinced will not slow down any project carried out in a time-efficient but respectful manner.
For the first amendment, BQ‑2, I'll give you an example of what the high-speed rail network act would do.
When someone receives notice that their land is subject to expropriation, they get a knock on the door and are told that a piece of their farmland is required for the project. Obviously, the Expropriation Act seeks to prevent land speculation. The idea is to stop someone who is almost certain that their land will be expropriated from pursuing a condo development on that land and hiring an architect, to then sell to the government for an unreasonable price. That makes sense. That is the reason for preventing people from undertaking certain work on their property.
However, broadly speaking, the Expropriation Act maintains a person's right to carry out repairs. Take, for instance, a farmer with a silo. I'm really focusing on the agricultural impact. The person can undertake maintenance and repair work. Best practices dictate that, when a structure is damaged in a disaster, it can be rebuilt if the structure is necessary for the farm or farm facilities to operate.
I talked about what happened two summers ago to Éric Couvrette's farm, in Sainte‑Scholastique. The farm was destroyed in a fire, and he lost all his cows. He had to rebuild everything. Under the current wording in the legislation, he wouldn't be able to rebuild his barn if a small piece of the land was within the right of way through which the train would run.
I don't think there's any risk of land speculation if the victim of a disaster is allowed to rebuild facilities to continue operating.
The government repeats ad nauseam that the longer the project takes, the more it will cost. The same applies when you have to rebuild an agricultural facility. If it drags on for three, four, five or six years, the same thing is true. These are people facing major challenges, and they must be allowed to rebuild facilities damaged in a disaster. That's basically what we're proposing in BQ‑2.
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is very difficult for us to support the current version of BQ‑2, as my colleague is proposing. To find some common ground, we would like to propose a subamendment.
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I'll read you the subamendment. It's on my phone, because I don't have a paper copy in French.
The subamendment would replace the part where it says that the owner of land that is subject to a notice of prohibition on work and any lessee or occupant of that land must not undertake or cause to be undertaken any work to the land, other than work to prevent the normal deterioration of the land or to maintain its normal functional state, but that work begun before the notice is registered may be completed.
We propose replacing the wording to say that the owner of land that is subject to a notice of prohibition on work and any lessee or occupant of that land must not undertake or cause to be undertaken any work to that land, other than work to prevent the normal deterioration of the land, to restore its state after a disaster or to maintain its normal functional state and work authorized by the appropriate minister, but that work begun before the notice is registered may be completed.
If my colleagues are okay with that subamendment, I think we would have an acceptable compromise.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Yes, I'm going to ask Mr. Leitão to email it to the committee so that it can be distributed to members.
We'll take a short break for that purpose.
Liberal
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like unanimous consent to withdraw my subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Is there unanimous consent for Mr. Leitão to withdraw his subamendment?
Go ahead, Mr. Garon.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I would like the government member to explain why he wants to withdraw the subamendment.
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
We want to withdraw the subamendment because we think it could make things more complicated, so it's easier to withdraw it.