Debates of Dec. 7th, 2009

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #145

Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

When the matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain had the floor for questions and comments consequent upon her speech. There are five minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments for the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

I recognize the hon. member for Mississauga South on questions and comments.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech she expressed her views, which is always important for the House to hear. I am curious as to whether the member is aware of the fiscal circumstances of the province of Ontario leading into this discussion and whether she is aware if this is tax neutral or in fact a tax drain on the province of Ontario's finances.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really welcome this question because it speaks to the heart of what we have been saying in the House. The federal government, at a time that it has a deficit of $56 billion, is nonetheless spending $4.3 billion to bribe Ontarians with their own tax money, so that it can raise their taxes further.

The member is absolutely right. Nobody's personal finances in this economic recession are in the kind of shape where they can afford this additional tax burden. That is absolutely why we are opposing the imposition of the HST. I am really surprised that the member for Mississauga South would not stand up for his constituents, who are as vociferously opposed to this tax as we are. I cannot believe he just voted for closure on this debate. As every Ontario member knows, this tax is going to hurt hard-working families and seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, given that we just had a vote on closure in the House, which essentially shuts down any kind of meaningful public participation, I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that first nations from coast to coast to coast as well as Ontario and British Columbia have not been consulted.

We note, particularly in Ontario, that the point-of-sale tax exemption is a very key issue regarding first nations and their ability to actually manage their own finances. In British Columbia, we know that the first nations have passed a unanimous resolution calling on the government to appropriately consult in regard to taxation policy.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that we just voted on closure, which limits that kind of participation.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me commend the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who has been a tireless advocate for first nations, not just when it comes to the HST but with respect to all of the issues that the House should be dealing with in much more detail than we ever are. It is only her voice that is being heard in the House to champion the rights and legislation that should impact first nations. I really want to commend her for her work.

She is absolutely right. First nations need to be heard in this debate. The government espouses the rhetoric of wanting to deal government to government, yet when it comes to things like the HST, it is completely shutting out the aboriginal community. I commend her for speaking out on this issue, as have other members in the House, such as the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and the member for Churchill. They have all taken up this cause.

It is not just aboriginal communities. Everybody needs to have the opportunity to have input in something that is going to impact their bottom lines so negatively. We need to hear from seniors. We need to hear from hard-working families. We do need to hear from aboriginal Canadians. As I mentioned in my speech earlier, I had the privilege of reading dozens of comments that I have received by email into the record. However, that is just the tip of the iceberg.

We need to have a full debate. We need to give Ontarians an opportunity to be heard on this issue. I think the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is absolutely right. Closure is disgraceful in this place. This issue deserves a full debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I can take a 30 second question and a 30 second response. The hon. member for Welland.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, according to the finance minister, the provinces want this. In May 2006 he said:

The Government invites all provinces that have not yet done so to engage in discussions on the harmonization of their provincial retail sales taxes with the federal GST.

In light of this quotation, could the member for Hamilton Mountain please tell us what she feels is really behind this closure when it comes to the government and the federal complicity in the HST?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that the federal government has had a huge role to play in this. In fact, if the federal government had no role, we would not be debating this issue in the House at this time.

When the member raises questions about the Minister of Finance, I must say that I share his concern. I wonder what his conversations are like at home. As members here will know, his wife is a member of the provincial Conservative caucus that is pretending in Ontario that it is opposed. Yet, they are banging their heads against the majority government when the fight ought to be here.

It is here and I am ashamed to say that the New Democratic Party is the only party that is opposing the HST. I hope people at home realize that. The Liberals and the Bloc have joined forces with the Conservatives in the axis of taxes, which—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity. This is my first experience here with closure.

I have followed politics quite carefully and closely for a long period of time. I remember when the Liberal government used to invoke closure, the Conservatives were up in arms, screaming like banshees about it. I certainly did not get that sense today, that they were outraged by putting that forward.

The interesting thing is that the HST, plainly put, is the wrong tax at the wrong time. I want to give a couple of examples from my riding, people I have talked to, but I also want to debunk a couple of things that the government is saying, along with the McGuinty government in Ontario, is good for the HST.

The government is saying this is really good for small businesses. It is good for small businesses because they are going to be able to get all their inputs back. The fact of the matter in Ontario is that most small- and medium sized businesses have very few inputs that have PST on them right now. So the argument is false.

To presume from that, that it is going to create, and I think the quote has been from the Premier of Ontario, 600,000 new jobs is just the opposite. I have a small business. I know many people and have talked to many people who have small businesses, and not one of them has said that they are going to be hiring somebody because of HST. In fact, it is just the opposite.

Before I get too much further, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East. I forgot to say that at the beginning, and I hope that it is still acceptable.

I want to give a couple of examples. I will give an example of a gentleman in my riding, and I will not use his name, who says that this tax is certainly going to put him under. This kind of tax at this time, in a recessionary time, means that those who spend most or all of their income every month to survive are no longer going to be able to even survive month to month. That is a real problem.

I spoke to an elderly gentleman in Atikokan, which is right in the middle of my riding. The riding has had its share of troubles over the years since the mines closed in the early 1980s. He came to me and said he could not pay his electricity bill. Keep in mind, he is in his mid-80s or so. He worked all his life. He raised his family. His children are gone and his wife has passed away. He owned his house about 30 years ago or so and he is on a fixed income.

He says, “I cannot pay my electricity bill, and I do not know what to do”. If he cannot pay his electricity bill, what is he going to do when he gets another 8% on his electricity bill, when he gets another 8% on his home heating fuel, or when he gets another 8% on his gasoline purchase? I do not think he drives anymore, so that is not an issue.

He also told me, “I do not know why I cannot pay my electricity bill now because I have one light bulb in my house. I use one light bulb in my house, and every three or four days I turn my refrigerator off and then on again. That is all the electricity I use”.

Now, there is a combination of reasons for that, that do not concern the government, and it happens to be things that Mr. McGuinty has done, smart metres and a couple of other things have started to put daily expenses out of reach for this gentleman, but he is not the only one. I have talked to plenty of seniors and other people on fixed incomes who are having real trouble with HST.

I will give another example. In Emo, in the west end of my riding, we have a number of people who depend on the tourism industry. They have resorts. In this particular case, a gentleman from Emo and his family have run this resort for 35 years. I believe it was his father's before him. The way resorts work, the way the business works, and I am sure everyone in the House will agree with me, is they plow that money back into the business every year to build that business. They do not think about retirement. The only retirement they think about, when they are in the resort tourism business, is that someday they are going to be able to sell that resort, and that is going to be their retirement.

He came to me in Fort Frances and said that he cannot sell his resort; there is no one around who wants to buy it. He said his business is down 50%. There are a combination of factors, and I will briefly describe them.

Two years ago the Ontario government made him get a professional survey for his out-camp. He has a regular resort and then he has an out-camp hundreds of kilometres further north, where he takes people fishing. He had to get a professional survey at his own expense. He did that. The next year he was charged property tax.

That was really tough for him, because he was paying property tax on an out-camp. Why do we pay property tax? It is because we get services. When his place burns down, I am not sure who is going to put the fire out in that out-camp. He does not get any services, so he has been hit again. This time he is going to be hit with 8% HST. There will be some more percentage points on each bed he has.

Let us not always think about 8%, because at this time that flight from his resort to his out-camp has no tax on it at all. He will be charging 13% to tourists, most of them American, to send them to those camps, and his business is down 50%.

He said he would have to go down to Iowa this winter, set up his table and try to get business at the trade shows. Right beside him is going to be a resort owner from Manitoba. The fish in Manitoba and northern Ontario are not that much different. He said he would be standing beside a fellow from Manitoba who will be able to undersell him by $1,100 to $1,500 for any package he can offer. He fully expects that in 2010 business will be down another 50%.

Members will remember my opening comments. Resort owners who deal with tourists plow every cent back into their businesses, as do owners of many small businesses and many medium-sized businesses. They look to retirement when they can sell their resort; that becomes their retirement nest egg. Mr. Speaker, this gentleman is not going to have that retirement nest egg because he is being priced right out of business in northwestern Ontario, and HST is just the latest.

There are couple of other interesting things that the Conservative government and the Ontario government talk about when they say that the HST is going to be good for us. One is that they say it is good for investment. That is an interesting statement. If we compare a tax on profits, which would be the normal way of doing things, and this kind of value-added tax, I am not sure we are going to see any investment; we have high unemployment, and more than 50% of the people in Ontario are not even figured into the unemployment figures because either they have given up or moved, or their benefits have lapsed.

The most heinous thing about HST and the government is that they are borrowing $4.3 billion. This is not money the government has. It is borrowing $4.3 billion, and the cost of that extra over the next 10 years may be double. It may be $9 billion or $10 billion. They are borrowing $4.3 billion to bribe Ontario into bringing HST in. Ontario is going to send one-time cheques to everyone, cheques of $350 for single people and $900 or $1,000 to families. People in Ontario are going to be bribed with their own money, but it is not even their own money; it is money that the government must borrow to make HST happen.

It is also interesting that although Conservatives talk about money going back into the coffers, the Ontario Minister of Finance said that we will lose on this tax. We will not even make anything on this tax. My goodness, why is it coming here in the first place?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a lot of time to debate this, but I wanted to raise one aspect of this issue.

Currently, provincial sales tax is applied at every stage of the process of a product. There is PST on extracting a raw material. There is PST paid on that again when it is manufactured, and it cascades, so that ultimately, when the consumer purchases a finished product, provincial sales tax has been applied as a tax on a tax on a tax. It cascades through the system.

What that means is that the end product has an extraordinary amount of provincial sales tax incorporated into it. Under the harmonized system with the input tax credits, businesses are in fact going to get a substantial reduction in the cost of the end product being sold to the ultimate consumer.

This is the issue, and the member may have a comment about it: if businesses are going to save all this tax that they have been paying along the line, how are they going to reflect that savings in cash flow with respect to the ultimate price to consumers?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is dealing with a couple of falsities to begin with.

The first is that we are going to have a long time for this debate. Apparently we are not going to have a long time for this debate; it is going to be finished today, and that is most unfortunate.

As I said, small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario right now do not get charged PST on most of their inputs. They do not have that particular tax right now. They do have GST, and we know that there is a system of recovering that GST.

Let me give an example to the member of how really disastrous it is for those small businesses, particularly those that are close to the line, close to the profit margin, or just struggling to stay alive.

Many people do not know that the Prairies start in my riding, but they do, and in the west end of my riding there are a lot of cattle farmers. Cattle change hands three, four, maybe five times before they go to the end user, before they go to the market. Cattle farmers in my part of northern Ontario are this close to the line, and if they are putting out money, they cannot wait three or four months to get it back in, because they will not survive.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River has done a really good job of describing the overall problems while particularly focusing on northwestern Ontario, and I thank him for that.

I have two questions and ideas for the hon. member to help us pass along to those who implement this act.

First, the hon. member did a really good job of talking about the burden on tourism. The tourism industry used to get rebates for its non-Canadian tourism customers, who got a rebate on much of their GST inputs. That has been done away with. I would like to ask him whether he thinks it would be a good idea to reimplement that rebate to the tourism clients.

An even bigger question and idea is this: given the depressed state of rural areas such as northwestern Ontario, which to date has had no help at all for the forest industry from the current government, what does he think of the idea of a tax holiday for areas where the forest industry is down? We have areas that desperately need a tax holiday until they are on their feet again.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Thunder Bay—Superior North is absolutely right. If the current government and the Ontario government are determined, with the help of the Liberals here, to make this tax a reality in Ontario, I would like to see northern Ontario set aside as an HST-free zone. That would be fair. It is something that needs to be considered and looked at.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

How about northern B.C.? How about Abbotsford?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it should include northern B.C., for that matter. My goodness, that is an important part of it.

The hon. member also brought up another interesting point, which is that tourists in Ontario will no longer be able to get that tax back when they leave the province, or at least that is my indication. That will stifle tourism. That is another 13% for every tourist who comes into this province.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we have only very limited time for this debate, which is very unfortunate. I have to say that on days like this, one feels a sense of shame about what is taking place. The motion that we had in this House a few minutes ago, which is now placing a limit and a closure on debate on the HST, is truly shameful.

As a British Columbian and as someone who has heard not only from so many of my constituents but also from people all across B.C. and indeed other parts of Canada, I feel incredibly disappointed that there are Liberal and Conservative members of this House who are going along with this proposal to ram through this legislation before Christmas when there is absolutely no reason to do so.

We had the leader of the B.C. NDP here today in Ottawa. In a press conference she held with our leader, she made it clear that in British Columbia they are not even looking at the legislation on the provincial side until spring, so why is the government, aided and abetted by the Liberals, now trying to ram this through?

We come to Parliament to represent our constituents. We all understand that one of the most important issues that we represent in that debate, and why we come here, is the debate over taxation. We in this party, I am proud to say, stand for a fair and progressive taxation system. We believe that taxes should be paid; they produce the services and the programs that can help bring about a sense of equity in our society, whether it is for housing, pensions, social programs, help for veterans or help for the unemployed. We understand that the importance of the taxation system is fundamental to who we are as parliamentarians in the role of government.

However, what we are debating and what is being rammed through here today is legislation that is inherently regressive for people on low and moderate incomes.

I spent all of Saturday in my riding in east Vancouver at the Kingsgate Mall and at the Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House at what we call travelling community offices. I did not raise this subject, but every single constituent I met asked me about the HST, why it was being rammed through here in Ottawa and why that had to happen. I had to say it was because members of Parliament from B.C., other than New Democrats, are refusing to stand up and speak out in favour of their constituents to ensure that in this country we will have a fair and progressive taxation policy and program that will not hit people on low incomes or people who are poor.

I feel very ashamed today that we are having this debate on closure and that we are going to be voting tonight at 8 p.m. Because the Liberals and the Conservatives have worked together to bring forward this closure motion that we voted on a little while ago, this debate will now be eliminated at 8 p.m. tonight. Then this bill will be rammed through tomorrow and the day after, when it did not need to happen. Shame on those members.

One of the constituents I met was someone was working full time washing dishes in a very popular and fairly expensive restaurant. He showed me his take-home pay stub. His net take-home pay every month was $890.00, and that constituent is trying to support his wife and his family. He just got moved out of a social housing program. Luckily, he was able to find something else. However, a large percentage of his income is going on rent. To meet constituents one by one, to meet the people who are going to be hard hit by this legislation, is not something to be taken lightly. It is not something that can be brushed off by our being told that in the long run this is going to be good for us.

I can tell members that in B.C. people know intrinsically, they know inside their hearts, they know inside their guts, they know from their chequebooks that this is a bad tax, that it is the wrong tax at the wrong time, that it is being delivered by the wrong people, that it is regressive, that they are going to be hurt by it and that they are going to be paying more money every day for very basic essentials in daily life, whether those are haircuts, vitamins, a taxicab or even a funeral.

I feel very proud that we New Democrats in this House have done everything we can to point out the inequities of this proposal being rammed through by the government.

We have stood up time and time again and said to the government that this is absolutely the wrong course of action to take. It took months for the government even to acknowledge and admit that it had anything to do with it.

We heard from the finance minister and still today Conservatives are saying that this is not really them, that it is the provinces. I can hear them now. They want to duck their responsibility.

The people of B.C. understand that it is the Conservative federal government and the Liberal provincial government that are foisting this on the people of B.C. There is incredibly widespread opposition to this tax. It goes right across the political spectrum. We can see it in the emails. We can see it in the letters to the editor. We can see it in the rallies that have been held. We can see it in the petitions that have been collected all around British Columbia.

We are here today as a very united voice in our party to say that we 100% oppose this regressive tax that will so unfairly hit people particularly during an economic recession.

I think members of the House need to reflect on what is taking place here today and ask themselves why it is that this is being done at this moment. Why does this legislation have to go through before the House recesses on December 12? Why do we have a motion today, which is going to be approved, that will set out debate for two days and the bill will be before the finance committee for a mere four hours?

We can see there has been a gathering of ideological forces between the two major parties. They are determined to try to thwart public opinion, to try to duck their responsibility and to get this out of the way as fast as they can.

We have news for those members who think that by getting the bill through before the House recesses the issue will go away. It is still going to be a major issue in British Columbia. People are still going to be talking about it. They are still going to be signing petitions. They are still going to be raising this issue both in the federal arena and in the provincial arena. They will do everything they can to ensure that the legislation does not go through.

Today as we approach this time limit we should really be thinking about what our responsibilities are as members of Parliament. Our responsibility is to listen to our constituents and to understand the impact of legislation, whether it is this kind of legislation or other legislation. Obviously there is other legislation but at this particular time it is this piece of legislation that we are talking about and to understand the reality of how it is going to impact people.

We believe that the legislation is ill-conceived and should be scrapped. As we go through this debate, maybe some members will change their minds. I would like the members from B.C. who are supporting it to come into the House and tell us why they are supporting the bill and why they are going against the wishes of their constituents after all that they have heard and after all of the opposition in B.C.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after paragraph 1 and substituting the following:

“upon the adoption of second reading motion, the Standing Committee on Finance shall undertake public hearings in which opinions of Canadians on this legislation shall be heard; the choices of witnesses to be heard in this process will be made by the Committee; in relation to its study of the Bill, members of the Committee be authorized to travel in Ontario and British Columbia, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee; and the Committee shall report these Canadians' views back to this House before February 28, 2010”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair will take the amendment under advisement as to whether or not it is in order.

We have a short amount of time for questions and comments before question period. The Chair will come back to the House with a ruling on the admissibility of this amendment after question period.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver East for enlightening us on what is going to happen with the HST.

The HST is going to apply to a lot of items. I would like the member to comment on some of the things that are going to be taxed, for example, gasoline, utilities, heating, hydro, natural gas. These all concern me but one that concerns me a lot is adult footwear under $30. Only the poor buy footwear under $30. I would like the hon. member to comment on the tax on $30 footwear.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the member raised this issue, because it does illustrate how hard hit people will be. That is precisely why we moved the amendment, to try to ensure that at least the finance committee will hold public hearings in Ontario and in British Columbia so we can actually hear from people about the impact of this legislation on things like footwear, vitamins, haircuts or other daily provisions that are being hit by this. What we hope to achieve with the amendment is that hearings will be held.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will be three minutes left for questions and comments after question period, but now we will move on to statements by members.

Canada-Palestine Friendship Group Report

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week I raised a point of order concerning a document circulated to members of the House.

I objected to the failure to identify the document as a product of the Canada-Palestine friendship group. Instead, it was presented with the House of Commons identification on the cover, followed by “A Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the West Bank and Gaza”. But the members were not delegated by the House nor are they a parliamentary association, which implies taxpayer funding.

More troubling than the misrepresentation of the origin and authors of the report is the one-sided presentation of a complex and multifaceted conflict.

These members toured UNRWA camps. Did they notice that school books depict only one state called Palestine? These members toured illegal tunnels. Did they notice the smell of gunpowder and rocket fuel? Did the members suggest to their hosts that calling for the destruction of a neighbouring state and launching rockets into civilian areas are not landmarks on a path to peace? Finally, did the members take note that a complete Israeli withdrawal that displaced 7,000 settlers from Gaza did not produce an ounce of peace or hope for Israelis or Palestinians caught in the conflict?