Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2009

Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a chance to reload and get going again here. My colleagues across are relishing in hearing their quotes quoted back to them.

I do have one other one that is pretty relevant. I would like to quote the NDP member for Outremont who, when asked about the 2007 economic statement that reduced the lowest personal income tax rate, reduced business taxes, increased the basic personal amount that can be earned tax free and lowered the GST to 5%, said: “I don't think the average Canadian is going to see that much of a change. That's not what Canadians need”.

Or what about the NDP caucus chair, the member for Winnipeg North. This member previously demanded that our Conservative government--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is rising on a point of order.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member for quite a long time now and we are dealing with Government Business Motion No. 8. Nothing he has said from word one relates to Motion No. 8 in the least.

I would ask you to call him to order and have him deal with Motion No. 8. If he wants we can take time to enumerate exactly what is in that motion, but he is talking about a bill that we have not even seen yet.

This is a whole closure procedure that the government is involved in. The Conservatives could have brought this motion in two or three weeks ago and now they are crying that they have no time because we are scheduled to get out of here next Friday. They are bringing in closure. There is no bill here and with his unlimited time he is not even addressing the motion in front of us.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is correct when he says that the motion before the House is Government Business Motion No. 8. What we are dealing with is a bill in the name of the Minister of Finance entitled “An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act”. Subsequently, there are significant references from a procedural point of view in terms of how that will be dealt with.

As you know, it is common practice for the Chair to give great latitude to members of the House. At times the Chair does remind members to stay between the ditches in terms of staying on track even when they have unlimited time, so I would encourage the hon. parliamentary secretary to accept this advice and to resume with his remarks.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that I was not between the ditches. I would not want to put myself in that position. But perhaps I could remind hon. members why we are here debating this very important motion.

If the hon. member had been listening, he would have heard at the outset of the speech the reference I made to how important this is, how critical this is that we get this done and get it done quickly. We have two provinces that have made commitments to their taxpayers, that have made commitments to their businesses that they are going to move forward with a harmonized value-added tax.

We have seen an incredible display already today in trying to hold that up. I am sure it may not be the premiers of those two provinces, but I am sure their legislators are watching with interest to see why it is being held up. They want to move on with the decision they have made, the decision that is within their jurisdiction to provide that sort of a tax program to their taxpayers, to their businesses. They have given the arguments in their legislature why they want to go ahead with it. It is our duty to provide them the avenue in which they can do that. That is what I am referring to here.

I am also making examples of the hypocrisy we are seeing. Some of the members of the House are standing and saying, “Don't raise people's taxes”, but yesterday they said, “Raise people's taxes”. There is no credibility to this, so I am pointing this out to make the argument why we need to get this through, why we need to get it through fast, why we do not need delay and filibuster from the NDP because it does not make any sense. There is no correlation with its past record and what it is going to come forward with here with what we have seen already.

There are one or two more quotes that are just so good that I cannot leave them out. The member for London—Fanshawe, if I can quote again, said, “I am absolutely astonished. I am breathless”.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina is rising on a point of order.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like perhaps the member has not listened to your ruling. I read every word in Motion No. 8, which on the order paper on page 36. There is nothing in here about the content about which the members talked. It talks about a number of hours and sitting days and how the public are not allowed to participate because there is no public hearing.

We are debating the motion. We are not debating a bill that we have not seen. Yet the member, over and over again, keeps disobeying your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and that is not the way we should proceed.

Let us get out of the ditch, using your words, Mr. Speaker, and come back on the road and talk about the whole motion, the six clauses that are in front of us.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I will try this one more time. We are dealing with Government Motion No. 8, which deals with amending the Excise Tax Act. The parliamentary secretary may be taking a rather circuitous route to his point, but it is not the habit of the Chair to use a strict definition of what members can or cannot say, and I cannot imagine members want the Chair to do that.

However, I will go back to the hon. parliamentary secretary because I think he was getting very near the end of his presentation. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when you speak about back on the road, it reminds me of all the great construction projects that were put forward through our economic action plan. It is great to be back on those wonderful roads, roads that are in much better condition than they were back in those 13 dark years of Liberal government. We rejoice in the fact that we have a good road to drive down. I will listen to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will steer my vehicle back on to the road.

Despite all the heckling around me, and I am not sure if it is actually support, this is very important. The fact is the provincial governments are waiting for us to make a decision. I do not want to be the one standing between the decision those provinces have made to harmonize the value added tax. However, I would like to think the rest of the members in the House will also continue with that and ensure we follow through on our commitment to them, a commitment that was made back in the 1990s by the former Liberal government.

We are following through on that because it is imperative we treat all provinces equally. Three provinces are fully harmonized. We think it is only fair that the two other provinces, which have come to us recently, have the same equal opportunity. I would encourage all hon. members to move forward quickly and help us move this motion forward so we can provide the legislative amendment, the changes the legislation, to allow the provinces to develop their harmonized value-added sales tax within their own jurisdictions.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. As occurs from time to time, we happen to be voting the same way on the motion, but I do not understand one thing. He repeatedly said how important it was to move this through quickly. Yet it was my perception that he talked at great length, almost, one could say, ad nauseam, and also provoked many interventions.

If it is so important to proceed expeditiously, why did the parliamentary secretary elect to speak at such great length, thereby prolonging this agony?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished. It must have appeared that I was speaking for a long time. I thought it was such a relevant topic that it was just a minute or two. I am hearing from colleagues that we were just getting to the good part. There were some delays in that.

It is incredibly important. I certainly took a few minutes to explain the reasons why we were doing this. I do not think that has to be repeated too many times in the House.

What we do not want to see is an intended delay in getting this done. The provinces of British Columbia and Ontario came to the federal government and asked us if we would facilitate the required legislation to help them with their tax changes. That is simply what we are doing. I would encourage all hon. members who stand and speak to do so proactively.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the government's decision to force through the HST before Christmas has profound implications for people in Ontario. It will target seniors and it will target people on fixed incomes. Yet he spoke nothing of the implementation of the bill. He spent the last 20 minutes attacking the New Democratic Party. I am glad he attacks the New Democratic Party because it is clear the New Democratic Party is the only party that is standing up to the Tories.

Look over at the Liberal benches. Those members are lying there like a deflated balloons. Was that not the party that a few weeks ago got up on its hind legs and said, “Mr. Prime Minister, your time is up. We will now be the official opposition.” Look over there. The members are lying there. We could not get enough bicycle pumps to put life back into them.

When it comes to standing up for senior citizens, when it comes to standing up for people who are getting gouged at the gas pumps, those members are walking along dejected, like the poor old slaves of Babylon being taken off into Conservative captivity.

Let us look at the record. It was the Tories, under Brian Mulroney, who brought in the GST, and Canadians kicked them out. Now they are back for the HST, and they will gouge our consumers at the gas pumps, they will gouge our seniors citizens and they will gouge our families with home heating fuel. They are going along with the ever sad Liberals in tow.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question in there, but I do see I have been recognized to give an answer. I shall do that. I almost feel like I should go sit down beside my hon. colleague from Markham—Unionville. He must have hurt feelings over that. Maybe the question was for the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, but I will answer it anyway.

This is very important for Canadians. It is very important for this government. When it is requested by the provinces, we absolutely respect provincial jurisdiction. My belief is the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois do as well. Because we respect that jurisdiction, when we are asked to facilitate a tax change for those two provinces that want to make it, have made decision to make it, it is our duty to provide them that opportunity.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary a question.

Tonight I hear the NDP say, “The sky is falling. The sky is falling. All we want to do is look for tax relief for Canadians”. The only people who are going to believe it are the NDP members. Look up, the sky is not falling. This government is committed to looking out for future tax reductions for Canadians.

I would like to read a quote from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. It said, “The federal government clearly has done everything it can to reduce tax rates within the boundaries of prudent fiscal management”.

Let us look at some other points that the government has done. The member quoted it in the speech that we “removed almost 950,000 low-income Canadians completely from the tax roll”. He also mentioned, “We reduced the overall tax burden the lowest level in nearly 50 years”.

I would like to hear some clarification on how much tax relief we have done for Canadians this year alone.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question from my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is a very relevant one. It speaks to the issue we are dealing with in this motion, and that is providing the provinces the opportunity to change their taxation system because they have chosen to do that.

We chose to reduce taxes for Canadians in all the budgets we have put forward. In fact, up to this year, we have reduced taxes by $220 billion. To put it into perspective, for an average family of four, we have reduced its taxes over $3,000 a year. Those are taxes that have not been sent to Ottawa. This money has been left in the pockets of families to help them better weather this worldwide economic recession.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry even the questions are not relevant to the motion before us, which is a procedural motion to lay out the manner in which we will dispose of a bill that the government wants to produce.

With regard to Motion No. 8, paragraph 2, which lays out the committee process that is being suggested with regard to the disposition of a bill that will eventually be tabled in the House, this calls for some very extraordinary work to be done by, I assume, the finance committee. Giving it the time of 11 p.m. and having to report back by 3 a.m seems to be way out of hand.

Would the parliamentary secretary explain to the House why the motion simply did not call for the disposition of such amendments, et cetera, to be dealt with in committee of the whole if he were interested in having this disposed of expeditiously?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are interested in getting this disposed of as quickly as possible. However, this is not the only legislation we are dealing with in discussions with government House leader. We had hoped to get to other legislation this afternoon, but the filibustering by the NDP prevented that.

We know there is some opposition. This is a democratic government, and we will allow debate on this. However, it needs to be limited debate. We need to move forward with this. It will be a challenge, but we think we have an exceptional finance committee, led by the member for Edmonton—Leduc. We think we can accomplish that. We are willing to sit until 3 a.m. to ensure that it clears committee, gets back to the House and we pass this at all stages.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talks about jurisdictional issues. It is very interesting that first nations have been excluded from this process. In Ontario we have the example of the point of sale tax exemption. In British Columbia the first nations have put forward a number of a resolutions, calling upon the government to use the consultation process.

If the Conservatives are so concerned about jurisdictional issues, why are they excluding first nations from this very important debate and why are they not allowing them an opportunity to come before the finance committee to put their point of view forward?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I refer back to the jurisdictional differences. Ontario has been, and is, in discussions with its first nations. Ontario has taken a different approach in the way it applied its sales tax in the past, and there are some challenges. The Ontario legislature has recognized that. It is dealing with the first nations on a consultation basis, and that is continuing.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, International Aid; the hon. member for Labrador, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for St. John's East, Afghanistan.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this issue. I will be relatively brief and concise, at least by the standards of the parliamentary secretary. I do agree with him that this is a matter that we do not want to dilly-dally on for too long. It is a relatively simple argument that I am about to make.

I am pleased to speak to this procedural motion, which outlines how the House of Commons will go about examining the tax framework that would allow provinces whose sales taxes are not harmonized to pursue harmonization if that is their wish.

The bill asks a very simple question of us all. I just said it is a very simple question so maybe the hon. member will get it the second time around. The question is: Do the provinces have the right to choose how they tax their citizens? That is a very simple question. Specifically, this motion asks if provinces have a right to harmonize their sales taxes with the federal goods and services tax.

It is important to note that seven provinces have already harmonized their sales taxes with the federal government, and none of the provinces that have harmonized have ever chosen to reverse their course and de-harmonize that tax.

In 1997 at the time of sales tax harmonization in Nova Scotia, the provincial NDP, led by Robert Chisholm, vowed that if the NDP were elected to govern, it would scrap the HST. Today it happens the NDP is the governing party in Nova Scotia, but interestingly, I have not heard NDP Premier Darrell Dexter indicate in any way that his government will de-harmonize the sales tax. In fact, the Nova Scotia NDP wants to retain Nova Scotia's harmonized sales tax. That is the choice of the Nova Scotia NDP government. We as federal politicians should respect the provincial NDP's choice to retain Nova Scotia's HST.

This year two other provinces have indicated that they would like to harmonize their sales taxes with the federal government just as other provincial governments had done during the 1990s. Now it will be up to us as the federal legislators of the 40th Parliament to decide if we will allow Ontario and British Columbia to harmonize their taxes in the same way that the 35th Canadian Parliament allowed the other provinces to do.

Should we allow provinces such as these to have a harmonized sales tax and not others? My answer to that would be clearly no. It is not the job of the federal government to give certain taxing powers to one province and to deny those same powers of taxation to other provinces. That is not how I believe our founders imagined Confederation would unfold and it is certainly not how I believe it should unfold.

It is a very simple principle and it is one that we must decide is either right or wrong. While the NDP will try to paint the bill as thousands of things that it is not for political gain, this is the essential principle that at the end of the day we will all have to decide if we support or reject.

There are certainly arguments to be made on both sides on the merits of the harmonized sales tax, and generally speaking those arguments should rightly be made in the provincial legislatures. What we in Ottawa must not do is to deny those legislatures the ability to have that discussion or make those decisions.

In terms of the benefits of harmonization, there are reports from Jack Mintz and others that have indicated harmonization will lead to gains in investment, productivity, wages and jobs. Mintz, for example, suggested harmonization in Ontario could over five years create some 500,000 jobs. In a province that has seen manufacturing jobs hammered by the Canada-wide Conservative recession, this is certainly good news.

There is, of course, also concern about increased costs on certain items, and people with those concerns have certainly made them--

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

The member would be making a very informative and entertaining speech if in fact there were a bill before the House. The member has not said one word relevant to Motion No. 8 that is before the House which deals with the whole closure operation and the specifications that we will have one day to debate this and we will see a bill sometime in the future.

Basically, he is supposed to be debating Motion No. 8, which outlines the process that we are following, not the possible bill that may show up in a couple of days.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I appreciate the point the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has made. However, I will say again what I have said before, that in dealing with government Motion No. 8, there is a reference to changes to the Excise Tax Act and members are making comments in reference to that change and to that tax. On that basis, I am granting latitude today in terms of what members are saying.

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are really two sides to this debate. On the one hand, there is the medium-term point of view that harmonization will make provinces more competitive and lead to the creation of many jobs. On the other hand, there is the negative point of view that some taxes will cause some goods and services to cost more.

My major point is that the federal Parliament ought not to be the primary place for such a debate. The primary place for such a debate should be in the Ontario legislature and the British Columbia legislature, because it is a provincial matter what kind of tax provincial governments choose to impose. It is our job here in Ottawa to listen to what the two provinces decide and to pass legislation that allows them to act on that decision.

To those Canadians who are on the opposite side of the HST debate, it should be remembered that the federal Conservatives do in fact have their fingerprints all over the bill. It is the Prime Minister and his finance minister who encouraged Ontario and British Columbia to harmonize their sales taxes. It was the federal Conservatives who noticed that the two provinces were both facing deficits due to the Canada-wide Conservative recession and offered them billions of dollars to make the sales tax change. If they had not done so, maybe Ontario and B.C. would not have decided to harmonize.

Of course, that is strictly hypothetical. The hard reality is that, for whatever reason, both Ontario and B.C. have decided to harmonize. They have struck legitimate signed deals with the federal government. As I said earlier, that is why the legislation will be about whether Ottawa thinks that provinces have the right to determine how they tax within their own areas of jurisdiction.

There is also a question related to this motion. Although no province has ever decided to de-harmonize, should one decide that that is the path the province would want to take, should Ottawa allow them to do so? I believe the obvious answer is yes. A province should be free to decide how it wants to tax its citizens within the parameters of the Constitution.

Our position is clear. Whether we in the House like the harmonized tax or not is largely irrelevant because it is a matter for provincial duly elected governments to decide. Once a legitimate legal decision has been made and an agreement is signed with the federal government, the role of the federal Parliament is to allow those provinces to tax as they see fit to tax within their own field of jurisdiction.

I will be interested to see if my colleague on the finance committee, the member for Outremont, will be voting against this legislation. Will he be voting no? Will my friend from Outremont be telling the people of Outremont that he believes it is in Ottawa that the decision should be taken on how provincial legislatures must tax their citizens? Is it the view of the member for Outremont that we have un fédéralisme dominateur and that all decisions on provincial constitutional taxation are to be made in Ottawa? Although my friend from Outremont will vote against this legislation, I would be most surprised if he ever commented on the matter when he returns home to his riding.

What we can do here today is give a clear signal to the two provinces that have asked to harmonize and join with the provinces that have already harmonized that they are free to do so. To tell them that the door has not been closed on sales tax harmonization, leaving some provinces with an HST and other provinces unable to have one, is not a legitimate decision.

That clear signal is what this motion is about. It lays out how the bill will proceed through the House, including committee stage beginning tomorrow. The motion also contains a commitment that if the bill is not passed by the Friday on which the House is set to rise for the holiday break, we will continue to sit in this place on Saturday to further discuss the bill.

As I stated earlier, there is a clear question here. Perhaps I have been a bit repetitive but it seems to take repetition for it to sink into the minds of the NDP members. Basically it is a very simple question and I have repeated it perhaps three or four times, but they still do not seem to get it.

I am only going to speak for about one more minute, but I will repeat one last time the simple question that I am asking the NDP to absorb. The question is: Do provinces have the right to choose how they tax their own citizens? I would ask the members of the NDP to please consider this. Do provinces have the right to choose how they tax their own citizens?

It seems that the NDP is saying that the provinces do not have that right. We on this side of the House are saying that the provinces do have that right, whether or not we happen to be fans of the precise tax which those provinces choose to impose. The Liberal Party believes that provinces should have that ability. We will be supporting this motion to give those provinces the legal certainty that they need.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to help my colleague. I do not want to sound like I am being unfair to the Liberal Party, because it is sort of like jumping up and down on Jell-O.

Regarding his question about where the NDP stands on the HST, if we search the words “flip-flop on HST” on Google, guess what comes up? It is not the Conservative Party. Everybody knows where the Conservatives stand. They are rotten to the core. What comes up is the Liberals.

Just this past September, a visitor from Harvard University denounced the HST. What did he call the HST? I am not going to use the Prime Minister's name, but he used the Prime Minister's surname which begins with an “H” and said it was his sales tax. He said that the Liberal Party was opposed to the way the Prime Minister was going around the country forcing these tax harmonization agreements.

Now that the Liberals have had to come under the wing of the Conservatives again, they are trying to make this an issue of the right of provinces, when their own leader was flip-flopping on this.

I am trying to find where the party stands on everything. When it came to Kyoto, the Liberals voted to kill Kyoto. When it came to pay equity, they voted to kill pay equity.

Then they decided they were going to stand up and say that the Prime Minister's days were numbered because they suddenly discovered evolution and developed vertebrae. What did they do? They voted against the home renovation tax credit that they previously supported. They then voted against the extension to EI benefits.

But now when it comes to a tax that will squeeze little old ladies on their home heating fuel, now when it comes to a tax that every time we go to the gas pump we are going to pay an extra 8¢, thanks to the Liberal Party and thanks to the Prime Minister, guess what? Now they are back onside.

The problem with the Liberal Party is that it stands for nothing. On the HST issue, the Liberals have to be willing to take complete credit for the fact that people in Ontario will be paying hundreds of millions of dollars more at the gas pumps every year with the HST when they pay for their gas because of the Liberals' support.

I would like to end with a quote from Dimitri Soudas, who should now be supporting the Leader of the Opposition, but then he was attacking the Liberal leader and he was responding to the HST. He said, about the Liberal leader's then opposition to the HST:

When you're an opportunist like [the Liberal leader], you think nothing of saying one thing in public, another in private.

Here we are, being forced to rush through a bill that nobody has ever seen, that will have profound implications for citizens across Ontario and British Columbia, that will deny treaty rights to first nations people, and the member thinks that the only just thing to do as a Liberal is to get it through as fast and as quickly as possible so there is no accountability and nobody will check. First nations families, senior citizens, those on fixed incomes will all be left out in the cold for Christmas, but the Liberals will try to sneak back with the Conservatives and pretend they had nothing to do with it.

Will the member at least stand up, be accountable and say, “Yes, we as the Liberal Party completely side with the Conservatives, as we do on all great matters of principle, and support this regressive tax”?