Debates of Dec. 7th, 2009

Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, Ms. Jérôme-Forget's letter indeed identifies one element that seems to explain the government's reason for compensating Ontario, that is, how the government calculates input tax refunds. This seemed to be a disputed issue, which, according to the Minister of Finance, is what led the federal government to transfer money to the Government of Ontario.

The Quebec minister made a point of writing to the Minister of Finance to indicate that we agreed to work towards that. So, if we are doing more or less the same work as Ontario, we should of course receive the same compensation.

I appreciate my colleague's questions. He knows that I work very hard and that I examine all issues carefully. The harmonization issue is crucial. Quebec is also concerned about economic recovery and compensation would be completely legitimate. The Government of Quebec's request for compensation is completely legitimate, probably for the same reason that the Government of Ontario is requesting it, namely, to stimulate each province's economy.

However, we must also trust this House. If this measure is as important as the government claims, and there are no bones of contention or poison pills, as I explained earlier, I believe this House is responsible and it will be capable of getting this bill through quickly, for the well being of the citizens of the other provinces.

I think everyone will agree that, in principle, the idea of limiting the debate on such an important issue is unacceptable.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's comments regarding the closure motion. I only wish the Liberals would show the same concern. Traditionally, I would not have expected them, in this situation anyway, to be jumping onboard with the government as fast as they have.

The member for Vancouver East introduced an amendment calling for the Standing Committee on Finance to undertake public hearings, which would gather opinions of Canadians on this legislation. Witnesses would be called, members of the committee would be authorized to travel to Ontario and British Columbia along with the necessary staff and the committee would report back with Canadians' views before February 28, 2010.

We have noted that there is no emergency. The emergency is that the government is concerned that somehow it is getting into trouble with the public. Public opinion polls show that 80% of people are against this measure.

Would the member support the idea that we should not rush to judgment on this issue but have public hearings, have the committee report back by February 28, and then proceed in the normal fashion we usually do on a regular bill?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, what would happen normally is that this bill would be examined in committee. Out of respect for all of the members who serve on the Standing Committee on Finance and for the work that they do, I believe that the Standing Committee on Finance is the most appropriate committee to examine the bill or do any additional work that is required. The process in the House allows us to refer the bill to a committee, so that it can do its job.

I believe that the committee has the power to make decisions regarding how it will conduct its affairs.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges with a great deal of interest. I would even say I hung on her every word. In my opinion, she did a marvellous job of putting the dilemma or the debate in context, because it is a bit of a hodgepodge.

I will not ask her to give me a laundry list of reasons why we disagree with the approach the government is proposing. I understand that we are defending the principle that before such measures are taken, we must at least be able to take the necessary time and act responsibly, even if some would have us believe the bill is urgent.

We feel that this bill is not urgent. But perhaps the member could tell us more about the principle that we must be able to act democratically.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could tell my colleague that I think that, at this point, given all the debate surrounding this issue, there have probably been 5,237 people listening to this discussion. Quebeckers feel personally affected by this injustice.

I went into some detail earlier. The general debate on this motion seems to have acquired a certain tone and drifted into more detailed issues that the Standing Committee on Finance can examine thoroughly. It is quite a hodgepodge, as my colleague said.

However, this is an issue that affects Quebec, particularly when it comes to financial compensation.

For Quebec, the issue is just that we want the federal government to recognize that Quebec was the first province to harmonize the taxes, and that it should receive fair compensation, the same as provinces that began harmonizing their taxes later.

If this is an urgent matter, I think it is up to the government to make that case and give this House a chance to deal with the bill at whatever speed it deems necessary.

If the bill can be passed quickly, fine. However, at this point, I would not want to shorten the time we spend debating an issue that is so important to Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock or thereabouts, the House of Commons will be debating Bill C-62, the harmonized sales tax bill. If it is passed, the federal government will give permission to the British Columbia and Ontario governments to proceed with the HST starting in July 2010. It would also permit the $6 billion transfer.

Normally, a closure motion comes after many days, weeks or months of debate on an issue or a bill. What is odd and absurd about the situation before us is there has been no debate on the HST bill, none, because the debate has not even started yet. There has been no debate on the HST bill, because it does not start until tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I also want to say that I am splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Welland.

Here we are, debating a motion to limit the second and third readings and committee study. This bill is normally something that would take three, four or five months to pass through Parliament and the Senate. We are debating a motion that would stop the debate in two days, meaning that all of that work will be done in two days. It is unbelievable.

There will be no time for much study, no time to exchange points of view and no time for hearing from Canadians and small businesses. The Conservatives and Liberals will try to rush through this HST bill by this Thursday night so they can start their winter holidays.

We have a motion for hearings. We have an amendment. I am curious how many Liberals from the Greater Toronto Area will vote against hearing from the public, because I know that many of the people, not just in Trinity—Spadina and Toronto, but also in the greater Toronto region, are very much against this tax.

I find this mad rush to ram this bill through very anti-democratic. It is unacceptable and outrageous. We are supposed to be a House of Commons. When the commons, i.e., ordinary Canadians, are not allowed to be heard, then how can we call ourselves a democratic country?

The HST could actually stand for hated sales tax, horrific sales tax, hobbling sales tax or horrible sales tax. Since we are not going to hear much from my constituents in Trinity—Spadina, I thought I would read some of the comments they have sent to me by mail, email and telephone.

First, Matthew said:

No more taxes please, life is hard enough already.

Genevieve said:

I am particularly angry that his additional 8% tax will be applied to my natural gas bill for heating and hot water. Heating our homes is a must in Canada - not discretionary. Landlords will pass on this additional expense to their tenants rents. Furthermore, if this tax is implemented, it will be there forever, long after any rebates or income tax reductions are finished. I also don't expect small businesses to pass on their savings in the form of lower prices to consumers. They will simply keep the savings esp. if their business is struggling.

Liz wrote in to say:

I am retired on an investment income which has been severely reduced by the drops in the market. I don't know how I will be able to afford the 8% on utilities.

Cynthia said:

With 10% unemployment in ON, how can people manage to pay an 8% tax increase. People are suffering and no one seems to care.

Halina said:

I barely get by now as a daycare worker and no work pension to depend on. Help.

Darren, a student, said:

I'm a toronto citizen returning to university so that I can attain a new job. With tuition and now the proposed HST I am going to have more difficulty than ever before to support myself.

Lolito said:

HST will not only hurt the travellers that will visit Ontario and expecting a rebate, for me this is a plain discouragement for all the visitors who plans to come here. Definitely it will only hurt our tourism within our own province and it is indeed not a good thing to do....

Another constituent said:

This.... tax grab is not only going to hurt travellers... it 's also going to hurt tourism....

Luz said:

I am opposed to... (HST) being used as a solution to the current government's deficit. As a self-employed business owner, the HST will cost me more than I will save. The government's implementation of the HST during this time of economic recession recovery is completely irresponsible. Many sectors of our economy have just begun to feel the effects of the recession--this is the case for my business. Not only will the HST have a negative effect to small business owners, the cost to implement the HST does not make financial sense.

Bob said:

Unless I'm missing something, I do not understand the need for the HST. If eliminating the PST on intermediate inputs is going to have such wonderful impact on business and employment why does the PST have to be extended to goods and services that are currently exempt?

Another constituent said:

Something which most people aren't realizing is the HST is going to really hurt self-employed people like me. As a musician with a GST number, come April 2011 I will have to remit 13% of my income to the government instead of 5%.

This is really going to hurt self-employed people all over the map. What can be done to stop this bill!? Are all the Liberal MPs going to vote for it, or can some cross the party lines to vote against it?

We will see what will happen later on.

A senior said:

I will incur a higher tax on hydro, and many more things that are necessary for me and my son, like HOUSING, car insurance etc..... in this country when it's very cold in the winter, i can't afford to live without hot water and electricity.

Josefina said:

Please stop this HST tax. How much more can we be taxed!!!

Another senior, Larry, a CARP member, said:

As a Senior I am totally against the proposed HST. I cannot see how this will benefit anyone let alone Seniors. I would like you and all MP's to vote this proposal down [please]. Thank you!

Agnes said—and this is interesting—

For families struggling with the recession a new 8 per cent tax on everything from home heating to Christmas trees is kicking them when they're down.

It is not just Christmas trees and home heating fees, but it is new bikes and vitamins. It is when one takes a pet to the vet, when one surfs the net and when someone tries try to manage or buy mutual funds, or when one buys a house and real estate fees go up. Sports fees, gym memberships, even funerals, all are going to cost 8% more. It is also going to affect our seniors.

The Ontario Long Term Care Association said some 360 seniors' homes, affecting 40,000 seniors, are going to take a big hit. As a result, these homes are going to have to lay off a large number of staff. That means seniors will have less care and will have to wait longer for a bath or to eat a meal.

This is the kind of negative impact that we will see because of the harmonized sales tax.

Last, the reason for such a rush to adopt this bill is obvious: people hate this tax. The Liberals and the Conservatives are worried that if people go to the website, www.blockthehst.ca, they will use the calculators there to find out how much more they will have to pay and what kind of impact this tax grab will have, and they will fight hard.

Business of the House

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, during the debate tonight on the Motion to concur in the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (amendments to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Convention), the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent; at the end of the time remaining for the debate, or when no member rises to speak, the motion to concur in the Eighth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (amendments to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Convention) be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Disposition of an act to amend the Excise Tax Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware, but she may want to comment on the following. The law in the Province of Ontario is that the government of the day cannot spend money on advertising its legislation until after that legislation has been passed.

As a consequence, the Government of Ontario is seeking to pass its bill to harmonize the provincial tax and the GST by Christmas so that it can start to lay out for the residents the details of the bill, including that 93% of Ontario taxpayers will get a permanent income tax cut of some 16.5%, as well as a $1,000 tax credit and a new refundable sales tax credit on the increase in taxes.

Those are a couple of the items it has to undertake. It will take some time, but it is more of the story of getting significant income tax cuts, even though there will be additional taxes on certain individual items.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is saying is that we should allow the government to waste more taxpayer dollars to advertise why this tax grab is great for us. If this tax grab will be so wonderful for Ontarians, why is the Liberal Party joining with the Conservatives to ram this through before Christmas, especially if it is so confident that when the advertising hits, people will see the light and will love this tax grab?

If that is the case, do not be afraid. Have this debate, have it go public and have public hearings and allow people to decide whether they want it or not. Instead, they will hide behind some motion to ram the bill through in two days, which is unheard of. It is anti-democratic and very much a Mike Harris style closure motion.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend and just about every comment she made was a provincial comment. It was related to details of a bill that is the responsibility of the provincial government of Ontario.

Jack Mintz talked about the savings and creation of 591,000 net new jobs. He talked about exempting educational services, groceries, basic health, prescription drugs and child care. The HST would not be applicable to those.

What I find interesting is that the member is having a debate here in the House of Commons when it is enabling legislation. Does she not think maybe she should be in Toronto arguing the other side of this?

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

Madam Speaker, what I do know is that we are debating the bill before the House of Commons. Every penny of the $6 billion federal dollars comes from the federal income tax. It is a transfer of federal dollars to the provincial government. If there is no transfer of this $6 billion, the HST would not be happening. If we did not have Bill C-62 before us, the HST would not go through in Ontario or B.C.

So stop hiding behind the provincial governments. The Conservatives should stand up for what they believe in and justify why they are ramming this tax grab into the people of Ontario and British Columbia.,

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, to my namesake across the way, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, let me tell him what Ontario MPP Leona Dombrowsky said. I know the member is from New Brunswick but he needs to hear these things a little west of his province. She said, “I think it's important to remember that the federal government is a partner in this initiative,” when she spoke about the HST while huckstering around the province trying to get support.

On Ontario MPP, a member of the Liberal government, said that the Ontario Liberal government's partner at the federal level is indeed the member's very own Conservative government. It is interesting to hear the government disavow this and say that it has nothing to do with federal Conservatives and yet the Liberals in Ontario, in my province, are saying quite the opposite. They are saying that their hands are linked intrinsically together. I would say that they both have their hands in our pockets simultaneously trying to shake us for every dime and every penny they can.

It is quite clear that the Conservatives are saying something that rings hollow. They are saying it has nothing to do with them, that they are not talking to the Ontario Liberals and they are not really talking to them, yet the member from the Ontario legislature says that indeed they are partners in this initiative. This leads me to believe that only one of them is telling us the truth or perhaps not.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I hope you're not saying an Allen would tell a lie.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Of course, I would never suggest that about my namesake. But he is from New Brunswick and perhaps he does not quite understand what happens in Ontario.

To talk about what we are doing here, this opinion piece comes from the Intelligencer, no friend of the New Democrats. To summarize it, it says that the provincial Liberals, supported by the federal Conservatives, want to bring in a new tax to help business. Clearly, there is a linkage between the two. It goes on to say that thanks to the NDP which has kept its traditional stance, NDP leader Andrea Horwath, our leader in the province of Ontario, has slammed the tax recently saying it makes no sense for the province to be handing billions of dollars to large corporations while creating a new 8% tax for the residents of the province of Ontario.

Thank goodness Madam Horwath is working on behalf of the ordinary people of Ontario because clearly the premier of the province is not. With the help of the federal Conservative government he is finding a way to take money out of people's pockets.

One of my constituents sent me a letter. She had written the premier of Ontario because she is very upset about what the HST was going to mean to her and her husband. They are both on pensions. I will be very careful with what I say because I know the language could be unparliamentary if I were to repeat it verbatim. In talking about a letter that came from Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, she said, “This letter is 100% bulls---. I hope you and your MP friends can do something about this pile of,” and the word begins with a “c” and is referred to as manure in more pleasant circumstances. I quote the premier, “I would like to take this opportunity to tell you why we are making these important changes together” and he goes on to say together with whom. What is the federal government opinion of this b.s. idea? Clearly we now know that the federal government is in total agreement with the harmonized sales tax.

In fact, the Conservatives are so much in agreement with the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia they have used the draconian measure of closure, not after the bill was put before us. Perhaps they were concerned that things were being delayed unduly and it would go back to committee, as has happened with other bills. We did not get up in arms when the Conservatives with their Liberal friends took the decision to send Bill C-311 back to committee. But this is a bill we have not seen yet and they want to use closure.

It seems really unfortunate that before we even get a chance to debate it, there is a decision to limit debate, which is not what the residents in my constituency sent me here to do. They sent me here to debate measures important to them. No measure that has come before this House since it convened last year is more important to my constituents and other residents in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia than this dreaded HST.

Far and away, the greatest return to me personally, as far as calling me, emailing me and indeed taking pen to paper and writing personal letters, is this one seminal issue, yet the government is saying, “We cannot talk about it for very long. We want to move it along. The province is doing likewise. Let us get it over with by Christmas”.

I know I cannot refer to the hon. Prime Minister by name but some would refer to the HST as his tax. Some might call it the “happy sales tax” as we head toward Christmas, except that would be an undue measure on the folks in my riding who are struggling. People are having a great deal of trouble trying to work through these deplorable times when their incomes have been cut by 40% or 50%, in some cases by 100% because their EI has run out. Now they are drawing on what little equity they may have and what little value they have left in their homes or any other things before they apply for social assistance.

It really is reprehensible that we are about to embark upon a major decision in this House without taking the time to have proper debate, without taking into consideration that nearly 80% of Ontarians and British Columbians say no to the HST. Those are the indicators that all of us in the House are getting. I am sure my colleagues on the other side are getting similar responses from their constituents as well.

In fact, the Conservative MPP for Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound stayed in the legislature in Toronto, along with a fellow member of the Conservative Party. I know the MP from that riding as well has said on other occasions that he thinks it is the wrong tax. Unfortunately he has not decided to vote against it on behalf of his constituents. I guess that is a decision one always has to make.

I have heard my hon. colleague from Mississauga most of the day say numerous things about the tax package that is before the Ontario Parliament. On a couple of occasions he has actually mentioned that the tax revenue in the province of Ontario will go down. I would remind him that the deficit in Ontario is approaching $25 billion. If this tax were such a great tax that drives revenue down, which I am not so sure that I buy, but if indeed it does, which government in its right mind would impose a tax regime that would decrease its revenue at a time when it cannot afford to pay the bills as it is?

That would be the same as saying that I would like my mortgage to be $100 a month but I only want to make $85 a month so that I cannot pay it. I do not think anybody around here would do that. In fact I am sure the government would scold us and say that we do not understand how to balance our chequebooks. Clearly the member from Mississauga does not understand how to balance a chequebook if he is saying the revenue stream is going to go below what is needed to actually balance the budget. It makes no sense.

There is the debate on the other side. There is the yin and yang of this debate. We are told, “Trust us. It will create jobs and prosperity”. I heard that in the 1980s, and it was called the free trade agreement. What did we get as workers? We got jobs that disappeared by the thousands and now the hundreds of thousands and wages that either went down or stagnated. If the government is going to create prosperity the same way as was done with the free trade agreement, then I am afraid it is a sham.

It is a sham on the constituents that I represent, on Ontarians and British Columbians, perpetrated by a government that basically is going to take those poor taxpayers to the cleaners. I use the word “poor” purposely because indeed they are poor. The constituents in my riding are poorer today than they were 20 years ago. For members to stand in this House and suggest that somehow we will be better off because of this is utter nonsense. It is about time they learned tax policy and economics. I am guessing that a lot of them did not pass economics 101.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for an excellent speech and for his insight into the situation before us.

This is all about supporting corporations and Bay Street which are basically in control of the Conservative government and the Liberals, the so-called official opposition. The HST is going to shift taxes away from the big corporations and onto everyday families. The average family of four is going to be stuck with paying an extra $1,500 every year.

The federal finance minister has been pressuring the provinces in the last four federal budgets to sign on to this. He has given them a $4.3 billion incentive--some would say it is a bribe, but I will call it an incentive--to sign on for this new tax hike. We are going to have new taxes on coffee, donuts, newspapers, funerals, hydro, home heating, and on and on.

The NDP has moved an amendment proposing that there be no rush to judgment here. We have the time. We should treat the bill the way we do all other bills and have public hearings. We should send the finance committee to hear from the Canadian public with a report back to—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Welland.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, in one word, yes, I think it is a great idea.

Let me point out what I have heard before about how we are going to get $1,000 as part of a rebate package, as part of a scheme of economics in the province of Ontario. We are not going to get it forever. We are going to get it once. I am not going to argue about borrowing money and what that costs and all the rest of that. I will leave that to the others who do it so eloquently.

The tax does not stop after a year. The HST continues. The rebate occurs once. What happens in subsequent years when we do not get the rebate to offset it? Some will say not to worry, that the price of things we buy will go down. And I have swamp land in Florida that I will sell to them.

The bottom line is that the multinationals are about to get a big tax break. When free trade was brought in, they said it would create wealth and jobs for Canadian workers. It did not, nor did it create wealth. They took the jobs elsewhere.

When those corporations get their tax break, we should ask them where they will invest. Will they invest in what they perceive to be the high-wage economy of Ontario, or will they head south to Mexico, or will they head west to China with their money? No one has said, in this package, that when they get the tax break, they have to create jobs and create wealth. It is just—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the member is going to debate it, he better include all the facts.

In addition, there is a permanent income tax cut of 16.5%. The $1,000 rebate is for the first year. There is also the GST credit that Canadians get now on their tax returns. Ninety-three per cent of Ontarians are going to be better off under this system.

I do not know why the member would say that there is only the $1,000 rebate, without including the fact that there is a permanent 16.5% reduction in personal income taxes which is there year after year. If the member is going to debate it, he should put all the facts on the table. He should not be coy. It is okay to tell the truth.