Debates of Dec. 7th, 2009

Disposition of an act to amend the Excise Tax Act

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Mississauga South is absolutely right about telling the truth. Let me tell him the truth about Welland. Welland used to have the second highest income per capita in the province of Ontario and it is now the lowest. I do not know how much income tax he intends to get out of folks whose income is diminished by nearly 50%.

The bottom line is those who were basically told the same thing on free trade have seen their income either frozen or go down, which means the income tax stream shrinks. As the member quite ably pointed out, there is going to be a reduction in the income tax but it does no good for those who do not have a job. It does no good for those on social assistance, the very folks who live in my riding and who live in Windsor. The member ought to go and see them. Perhaps in Toronto it is a little bit different.

Let me tell the hon. member that when the income stream declines, we cannot get more money out of a stone. I learned that a long time ago. At the end of the day, by his own words, the revenue stream is declining in the province of Ontario. I would ask him to answer in all truthfulness, how do they intend to balance the books in Ontario—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be addressing all my points to Motion No. 8, which is before the House at this time. Motion No. 8 drastically and undemocratically reduces the ability of members of the House to deal with a very important issue contained in Bill C-62. We are faced with a motion that is rarely used in the House, rightfully so and quite frankly should not be used this evening and for the next couple of days.

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Sudbury.

The motion is rarely used. It is rarely used and it should not be used at all because it is so Draconian. This is what it is going to do. At the end of the day today, at eight o'clock this evening or around that time, we are going to have a vote on two matters before the House: an amendment to Motion No. 8 and Motion No. 8 itself.

If Motion No. 8 passes, we are in effect going to be limited to the entire legislative process in this House over the next two days. After second reading, we are going to have a maximum of four hours of committee deliberations on a bill that is some 32 pages long. It is quite complex. It is a tax bill. We are supposed to digest that as members of Parliament. We are supposed to somehow communicate to our constituents what is in the bill and the details of it, and do that in four hours in committee. Then it comes back to the House for one more day which will be a short day because it will be Wednesday and then it is over. We have a final vote at report stage and third reading, and it is done.

If we add up the hours, there are very few hours for what is a very important bill in terms of the consequences. It is a bill that huge swaths of Ontario and B.C., where it will apply, are overwhelmingly opposed to it. In the last two opinion polls 80% were opposed to it in British Columbia and 75% plus in Ontario were opposed to it.

There is a simple question that we ask. Why is the government doing this and why is it being supported by the Liberal Party? Those percentage numbers in the polls tell us why. We are getting close to the end of the year, to the break, and this is clearly designed to limit the debate so that the Canadians do no get any opportunity to express their opposition.

We, doing our job, as elected representatives are being denied any ability of any realistic kind to represent them in the overwhelming opposition to the bill.

My colleague, the member for Vancouver East, earlier today moved an amendment. That amendment would in fact allow us to put the bill over to the new year and by no later than the end of February we would have hearings that would allow those Canadians, and I would say this, I keep an open mind on this bill, who both are opposed, as we already know in overwhelming numbers, and those in support to come before the finance committee of the House of Commons and tell us what their positions are. Educate us perhaps, as opposed to having to take from the government verbatim what it wants to do.

Who would we expect to hear from? I will tell the House who I would like to hear from. I would like to hear from the first nations. We saw again today the finance minister standing just before question period and there was this big debate over who was responsible as to whether the first nations were entitled to exemptions from this legislation on the HST. He pointed the finger at the provinces. At the end of last week ministers in both B.C. and Ontario were pointing the finger at the federal government.

I would like to hear from the first nations on what their position is. I would like to hear what kind of consultations went on because we are hearing none. What I would like then to do is get some experts in to tell us, as members of Parliament, who is right. Who is supposed to deal with this issue for the first nations? They are one group I would like to hear from.

I would like to hear from retired persons because they are on fixed incomes and because of this legislation they are going to take one of the biggest hits.

I would like to hear from that lady in northern Ontario who wrote to one of my colleagues about the impact the HST is going to have on her home heating bill. She does not have other revenue coming in that would offset the $200 a year it is going to cost her just for her home heating fuel. Members of Parliament should hear from her.

I would like to hear from athletic groups in the country and other associations that are going to be negatively impacted by this tax. How many teams are we going to lose because they will not be able to afford playing any more? We need to hear about that.

I would like to hear from the tourism industry, which has been quite vocal up to this point in an organized way about its opposition to this tax. The industry knows the difficult economic situation it will face. Members of the House should hear what an additional 8% tax on its services would do to the industry. We are not going to hear from this industry in any kind of meaningful way with only four hours of hearings probably late in the afternoon tomorrow or early evening, if this motion goes through.

I would like to hear from those groups in our society that are economically vulnerable because they, like retired persons on fixed incomes, are going to take the biggest hit as far as we can see at this point.

I would like to hear from labour groups. A number of interesting positions have been taken by various federations of labour in terms of the impact this tax would have on their individual economic sectors. They are taking a significantly different position on the impact of the HST than the business community. We need to hear from both of these communities as to how this tax would impact them. If we are going to do our job as parliamentarians, if we are going to make an informed decision, then we need to hear from these groups.

I would like to hear from economists. We are hearing all sorts of things. The member for Mississauga South and members on the government side are touting the same thing, about how this is going to impact the economy, of the savings the business community would get.

We are hearing a different story from other economists. We heard from one business group that this tax would cost Ontario alone 50,000 to 60,000 to as many as 100,000 jobs. This tax would not make jobs. People would lose jobs.

We need to hear all of that information so we can make an informed decision.

When I hear some of the economic arguments, I think back to when the GST was originally brought in by the Conservatives in the Mulroney period. I remember it being a net revenue source for the government. The old manufacturers tax would be replaced with the GST and it would balance itself out. The manufacturing side would give us all those savings. That did not happen. We had a net revenue of about the same amount on the GST side. Within the first two years of the GST, several billion dollars more came in from manufacturers and it has just grown exponentially.

I would like to hear from economists who could give us an analysis, bring us up to date as to what happened when the GST came in, and what is likely to happen if the HST is brought in, in both Ontario and British Columbia.

We are not going to get any of that. We are back to the question: Why are we dealing with this motion? Why are we going to be denied the ability to do our job, the ability to make informed decisions? It is as simple as this. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals are running from the electorate. They are so afraid of what the impact is going to be if the electorate gets even more information on how negative the tax is going to be that they want to bury it as quickly as possible. That is a shame. It is not the way this Parliament or any Parliament should function.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about how the Liberals are running away from this. I am not going to speak on behalf of the new Conservative government but I will speak on behalf of my Liberal team.

I want to make it clear that we are not running away from anything. What I and my colleagues are simply saying is that the democratically elected, majority government of the province of Ontario has decided, rightly or wrongly, good or bad, to implement this harmonization tax. Who am I to stop what the democratically elected, majority government of Ontario wants? It wants this policy and the federal Conservative government is accommodating it. That is the simple answer I give to my constituents.

Let the people judge accordingly at the polls. I believe in democracy and I know that member does as well. Does he not believe that we should just leave it as such and let the provinces make their own decisions?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Democracy operates at various levels, Madam Speaker. When we look at what is going on in Ontario right now, it is doing the same thing there as the Conservatives are trying to do here in co-operation with the Liberals, which is to shut down any informed debate on this. There is one day of hearings, all of which had to be held in Toronto at Queen's Park.

When we talk about democracy, we talk about informing the electorate and letting them decide at election time what their position is. What happened? I know since I was involved in the provincial election in Ontario. The HST never came up. It certainly was not in the Liberal platform. It was never mentioned once. In B.C. where it was raised, there was a commitment from the Liberal premier of B.C. at the time that in fact he would not pursue the HST.

I want to make one final point about democracy. It is interesting to watch the shift here of Liberals doing the same as the Conservatives and pointing it back to Ontario. The reality is both the premier of Ontario and the Ontario finance minister, who sits in the same riding I do, have both made it clear that if they were not being offered $4.2 billion this would not be going ahead. That is not—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh put it very well when he talked about the democratic aspects of this.

It seems there is a contempt for democracy when we see a party trump the idea of direct democracy, “We are going to make sure everyone gets a say, we are going to make sure that constituents are heard”. What we are seeing in the House right now with this motion is a clamp down on democracy.

I would like to hear from my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh. What does he think happened to the whole notion of constituents being heard, that there is a value for democracy and an innovation in democracy? All we have seen—

[An hon. member]

That was Preston Manning.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Preston Manning's corpse right now, in terms of a metaphor, is heaped over there rotting. I wonder what my friend from Windsor—Tecumseh thinks of that.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that imagery is a little difficult to take.

As to democracy and the role that the Reform Party and then the Alliance played in the House when they were in opposition, it was really quite sad when they trumpeted how they were going to implement a meaningful democracy as opposed to what we had been seeing at that point from the Liberals. Shortly after they got into power, that all went by the wayside.

What it comes down to is this. The Conservative government does not believe in government at all. It would be quite happy to shrink the federal government down to a very small percentage of what it is and this type of tax approach is the way to do it. It very much takes any responsibility off the back of the corporate world, which that party is very much associated with, much as the Liberals were when they were in power, and dumps it onto the average person in Canada, particularly consumers.

That is what it is really all about. It is about shrinking government, when it comes right down to it. It is being accomplished if this bill goes through.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-62 is the HST bill. My colleague from Trinity—Spadina has called it the hobbling sales tax or the hated sales tax. There are so many names for it. Sometime in the next 24 hours, it will be presented in the House of Commons. If passed, the federal government will give permission to the governments in B.C. and Ontario to proceed with merging the GST and PST into the HST in July 2010.

A bill normally takes months to pass through Parliament and the Senate. Instead, the Liberals and Conservatives are trying to do this in two days. Two days does not allow for debate on such an important subject. This is why we need to talk about this issue at this point. In this economic downturn, this is the wrong tax in the wrong hands at the wrong time. It is an unfair tax grab.

It continues the pattern, under successive federal Conservative and Liberal governments, of pursuing policies that boost returns to a privileged corporate elite on the flimsy excuse that they will use those returns to benefit the rest of us. Three decades of growing income inequality in the country proves those promises are false.

However, what is the HST? I am getting a lot of calls from my constituents. They know it is going to cost them more, but they really and truly do not understand what it is all about. The HST is blending the provincial sales tax with the federal GST. It applies to a much broader range of goods and services than provincial sales tax normally covers. The provinces are permitted to exclude certain items from the tax. We have heard that Ontario is going to be excluding coffee and donuts, but not home heating fuel.

As I said, the provinces are allowed to exclude these from the tax, but exemptions cannot exceed 5% of the tax base. What will be taxed? The goods and services I am about to outline were not taxed under the provincial sales tax, known as the retail sales tax in Ontario, but will be subject to the HST, making them 8% more expensive.

I need to clear my throat, because there is quite a list here. Included are gasoline and utilities, so heating, hydro and natural gas. In my great riding of Sudbury, throughout northern Ontario and right across our great country, many people have to heat their homes. Their costs are going up, especially in Ontario and B.C., where we are proposing this.

Also included are Internet bills, adult footwear under $30, admissions under $4 to the pools, veterinary care, personal services like haircuts and massage, professional services like legal services, accountants and mutual fund fees and membership fees to the gym. We are trying to promote a healthier lifestyle across our country and now we are going to tax people to go to the gym.

Also included are new homes over $400,000 and real estate commissions, especially if people sell homes over $400,000. They will taxed on that commission. Also included are commercial property rentals, landscaping, vitamins, postal stamps and courier fees. This is my favourite, labour costs related to home renovation are also included. Here is a home renovation tax credit. A person can save $1,350, but guess what? They are going to be taxed on it with this new HST in Ontario and British Columbia.

Dry cleaning, carpet cleaning, funeral costs, motor vehicle service, including towing and car washing and ice rink rentals are also included. Hockey, our national game, will be taxed more. The tax on overnight summer camps is rising from 3% to 8%. Kids going to summer camp will be taxed. Campgrounds and domestic air, rail and commercial bus tickets are also included. I could sit here for the 10 minutes I am allotted just outlining all the things that are going to be increasing.

Finally, unlike the PST, businesses get a refund of their HST payments through the HST tax credit, administered by the federal government. This leaves business inputs free of tax, greatly reducing the corporate tax burden. Businesses add the HST to their sales and revenue. Canada collects the resulting revenue.

Last week, the Conservative government began the first step toward allowing provincial governments to adopt the harmonized sales tax, or the hated sales tax, or the hobbling sales tax. The government has taken the unusual step of declaring this is not a confidence matter.

In March the federal government signed agreements with British Columbia and Ontario to harmonize their provincial sales tax with the federal GST. The Ontario government introduced legislation last week. British Columbia has yet to do so. Therefore, there still is hope.

Federal legislation would also be necessary in order to transfer $4.3 billion to Ontario and roughly $1.6 billion to B.C. to cover transitional costs, as was promised by the federal government in the agreements. What would happen if these two amounts, the $4.3 billion and the $1.6 billion, were not there? We would not even be having this debate, because they would not be moving forward with the HST in these two provinces.

This massive tax shift from corporations to families is unfair. The tax is inherently regressive. It hits those who have no choice but to spend all, or a large part, of their income. It favours those with income to save, but taxes their savings if they are investing in mutual funds or RRSPs. This is doubly true in a recession where less than 50% of the unemployed qualify for EI, where social assistant rates are well below the poverty line and the cost of essentials loom all the larger.

We have heard a few times now that there is going to be a 16% personal income tax break. For most families I know that are struggling to get by, I do not know how a single mother could look to her children at the kitchen table and say that she was sorry she did not have enough money to buy milk this time because her costs were increasing everywhere else, but in May, when she received her tax return, she would have a little more dollars then. It is just not making sense.

The HST extends the sales tax to essentials previously uncovered by the PST and apart from those items exempted, and those differ from province to province, those with the lowest income have no choice but to pay it and sacrifice consumption elsewhere. The HST is hitting those who can least afford it harder than anyone else. The tax is quite simply unfair.

Without significant compensating measures, like the rebate, or significant exemptions of our essential goods and services for low and moderate-income families, the tax remains unfair. Our experience with social support programs does not reassure us. Governments that have demonstrated a callous disregard for the plight of low and moderate-income households cannot be trusted to apply the HST fairly.

If, as argued, a sales tax is bad for investment, compared with a tax on profits, then why is the removal of sales from inputs not matched by an increase in corporate income taxes? In fact, the opposite is true. The HST is accompanied by corporate income tax cuts at both the federal and provincial levels. In other words, the HST is part of a general and indiscriminate shift in the tax burden from corporations to individuals and families without adequate compensation.

Progressive economists argue that if we want to use the tax system to encourage investment, across-the-board cuts are an inefficient way to proceed.

With the economy operating at a two-third capacity, increasing profits by lowering taxes through the HST is not as likely to foster new investment as it might when the economy is booming. The timing of this tax is again wrong.

New Democrats are calling on Liberal and Conservative MPs from Ontario and B.C. to stand up for their constituents.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

What a great idea.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Yes, it is a great idea.

The NDP is the only party that has been crystal clear on the proposed HST. This is the wrong tax at the wrong time. However, it is not just the New Democrats. Let me quote a few people:

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.

That was the federal finance minister promoting that, wanting others to get involved with the HST.

I feel I just started my comments, but I understand I only have 17 seconds remaining.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member can perhaps add some comments in response to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I crave some clarity and some objectivity in this debate. I hear references to a new tax, and the member can comment on this.

First, it is not a new tax. The GST is still there and the PST in Ontario is still there. This is a harmonized tax base, so it is not a new tax.

Second, the $4.3 billion has been called a bribe. What actually happens when there is a transition in taxation like this is all the little pieces of tax that were taxed as PST, for example in Ontario, get added into the price of the product and the manufacturer will send those tax payments to the government. In this case the tax payments will not be sent because under the harmonized sales tax these are called input tax credits. What the manufacturer would have sent in as tax, he or she will simply credit against what is owed, what is received as a credit.

Therefore, all that taxation gets stuck, buried down inside the price of the goods and it is the consumer at the end who will pay the tax, and then it is remitted. Somebody has to cover off the cost of running government over the interim. In large measure, that is what the $4.3 billion is for, to cover off the huge drop in revenue that the provinces will experience in the front end of this new tax.

Last, those members call it a new tax, but the government will to end up collecting less taxes. They should figure that one out.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member gives me another opportunity to talk about what we are going to be taxed on.

He says that it is not a new tax, but we are implementing the HST on things that never had a tax before, or a provincial sales tax. I did not have the opportunity to read all things earlier, but I will continue.

Conferences and seminars, taxi fares and most admissions to live theatres will be taxed. For those of us who golf, green fees will be taxed. Did I say carpet cleaning? Hotel tax is rising from 5% to 8%. This is a new tax. It is actually implementing taxes on items that we have not paid taxes on before.

I keep hearing the income tax piece. As I mentioned before, and as my colleague from Welland mentioned earlier, we cannot get blood from a stone. If people have to pay more at the till, they will not have anything at the end of the month when they have to pay their other bills.

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

Madam Speaker, this debate is between the New Democrats and the Conservative Party because the Liberals are upset they cannot go out for their banana daiquiris on the beach while we debate this.

In terms of credibility about fighting for little people, about being credible on the economy, I would give the member one word, “Mulroney”. Mulroney brought in the GST and Mulroney was thrown out by the people of Canada. Does he not think the ghost of Mulroney hangs over that same lot?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is déjà vu all over again. Instead of “G”, it is now “H”. Once we have “H”, I think we will be going with the IST very soon. They are just going down the alphabet, another way to implement a tax that keeps hammering away at Canadian families.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

There is some irony in the debate that we are seeing today coming from the Conservative government. Actually the very Conservative member, the House leader who comes from British Columbia, was the one who moved this closure debate, the one who said that we do not need any discussion around this and that we do not need to talk to Canadians about it. This is from a party that in the province of British Columbia, where I come from, mentioned this not at all in the most recent election or the one before that or the one before that, but that somehow magically believes itself to have a mandate suddenly to raise taxes and do all the things my good friend from Sudbury just listed.

Such an undemocratic process comes from the so-called House leader of the Conservatives from Prince George, where we know this tax is hated and despised because we get the letters in my office. We get the letters because his office will not return any of the calls and letters anymore.

The Conservatives are deeply conflicted about this, and we can see the discomfort, time and time again, when we talk about this issue, because they know their base does not like this. For this very reason, for the very reason that they have no mandate, for the very reason that it goes against their political mores, apparently, these folks want to sweep this thing under the carpet and get it out just before Christmas.

What a Christmas gift for folks living in Ontario and British Columbia. It is a new tax that they did not vote for and did not have a say in, and the whole debate is going to be rammed through so that no one gets a chance to look at it and find out what the consequences actually mean in their lives.

The government spent $45 million talking about its stimulus package, buying signs and renting press halls all over the place. We know that when the Conservatives have something they think they like, it is $45 million spent on a little prop seen across the country, but this time, when they have something that they know is unpopular, what are they doing? They are slipping it through and hoping folks do not notice.

They are not going to spend $45 million promoting this anywhere. They are not going to spend 45¢ promoting it, because they know it is toxic. They know that for the Canadian economy and the Canadian people, this is the worst tax at the worst possible time. They sought no mandate from the electorate on this. They are acting in the most reprehensible way.

I can only imagine when these cats were still sitting in opposition. They railed against these types of procedures when the Liberals were in power. They got up on their hind legs, talking about the arrogance of the Liberal Party in ramming it through Parliament and not listening to the will of the House.

We all remember it. The idea that this place is a democratic institution and should be respected as such might have been the one principle they had that one could agree with. Now, lo and behold, a couple of years have gone by, and they have got a little used to the trough. Suddenly they are thinking that they do not have to care if Canadians did not ask for this, that they do not have to care if four out of five Canadians who are affected in Ontario and British Columbia are saying that they do not want it. It does not matter to this Conservative Party.

The Conservatives think there is no consequence. The rules that they are bending, breaking and making up allow them to do this in this place, but there is another rule of law that applies. That is when the next election comes and the members from Ontario and British Columbia have to go out and pretend that they had nothing to do with this. They will have to pretend that the $6 billion manifested itself from some imaginary place, that Ontario and British Columbia both said that without that $6 billion in hush money, they would not be implementing the HST. If the government had not put that $6 billion into the budget, this would not be happening.

To then say that this is an orphaned child and has nothing to do with them--that it is just McGuinty and Campbell doing this--is an outright fiction. It cannot be, because the evidence points so clearly in the opposite way.

The process obviously stinks, but the actual substance of what we are talking about tonight is even worse, because as my friend from Sudbury and others from the NDP have described throughout this short, circumscribed debate, this hits people who can least afford it. The folks who are paying more for all those services, for all those goods, are paying more at a time when they can least afford to do so.

In the northwest of British Columbia, we have been hard hit over the last decade or more. We are starting to see the first faint hopes of an industry that can get started again, and what do taxpayers get to see? They see increased taxes, and this from a government that just spent all of its time, money and oxygen pretending it was going to lower taxes and in fact is now raising them.

A question has to be raised: who does this help, and who does this hinder? Who is benefited by this? Clearly the few corporations that are rolling in the dough suddenly get to have taxes taken away from them. They get fewer taxes put upon their goods, regardless of how profitable they are. There is this myth that they are going to magically pass all those savings down in some benevolent St. Nick way to the consumer, that they are going to have a line item in their budget that says they saved this much on HST this year, so they have lowered prices by this much.

That is an absolute fabrication of reality. There is nothing close to the result. It is the same argument they used on the GST when Conservatives in a previous incarnation brought that in, and the NDP voted against that as well. The government has to realize that when it does a tax shift from those who can afford it to those who cannot, the NDP is always going to stand up in this place and resist it every single time.

We have heard about this provincial choice, but the Conservative government must take ownership for something. If it is proud of this, then it should run on this issue in the next campaign. The $6 billion could have been used for other things. One has to imagine the list of other things this country could be doing with $6 billion at this moment, rather than raising taxes: affordable child care, a national housing strategy, something to get more Canadians back to work, an employment insurance program that actually worked, a pension plan that actually let seniors live in dignity. All these things are on the list of options for the government to do, but instead the government is using the $6 billion as bribe money, hush money, to encourage, entice and seduce the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario into raising their taxes and doing something that both of those provinces know is deeply unpopular as well.

This is about accountability. By resisting this draconian measure by the government, the NDP is forcing it to take some small measure of accountability to its constituents, to the Canadian population and to the people in British Columbia and Ontario.

If it can get away with this, it will be looking for more. It is going to do more. Whether it comes to issues around climate change, issues around poverty or issues around the war, if the government feels that this place does not matter and thinks it can push around the Liberals, who are out searching for new leaders, it seems, every second week, then it will take advantage of that weakness. It will take advantage to hammer through things that it deeply believes in. It is time for this to end.

My last point is in terms of this provincial authority that these guys keep talking about.

This measure actually limits the provinces' ability to make up tax policy. One of the most fundamental and important tools the government has is its choice of what to tax and what not to tax. This agreement signed by Ontario and British Columbia no longer allows them to make those choices.

Where will the choices be made? They will be made here. They will be made in the federal Parliament, not in those provincial legislatures. Therefore, let the government end the tired rhetoric that this is the provinces' authority and that we will let them make these decisions, when we know for a fact that written into the bill is the reality that indeed the provinces will have less power to run their provinces. The provinces will have less ability to set the course of their own lives. The decisions that will be made here will be draconian, undemocratic and fatally flawed. This bill should go nowhere.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his fantastic speech.

One of the things that we both agree on adamantly is how the implementation of the HST is going to affect low-income earners and even middle-income families. Families are going to have less disposable income because they will have to spend more on the essentials. They will have to spend more more on things like haircuts and shoes under $30.

I do not know many families that can actually buy shoes that are over $30 if they have four kids. What we are doing is attacking families that have children.

I would like to hear the member's comments on implementing a new tax that is actually going to affect low-income and medium-income families.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am no longer an authority on haircuts, so I will leave what that impact will be to other folks.

However, when it comes to families that can no longer afford to make ends meet, they are in my office. I imagine they are in many of our offices every single week, talking about how difficult it has become just to keep the lights on and to pay all the bills, particularly if they have kids. Things have got worse. Now we hear that summer camp programs will be taxed. We hear getting into little league is going to be taxed. They are asking when it will be enough. They can no longer afford to do what the folks in Ottawa think they can do. This tax comes at the worst possible time.

In northwestern British Columbia we are hard hit right now. We are struggling economically. People need a hand up. They need a little bit of help. What do they have instead? They have a government that has closed its ears, closed its mind and heart to the people who need help. Instead it is opening up to the people on Bay Street, who hardly need any handouts from the government, although it is always loath to turn them down for anything.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has certainly laid out some examples of some new items that will be taxed and that are presently not taxed, but as the member knows, when we eliminate the cascading of the provincial sales tax, we all of a sudden have a lower cost base to pass on to the ultimate consumer. Theoretically, in a competitive environment it may not be a perfect translation to an 8% increase, but if it translates perfectly, in fact there should be no increase in the actual cost.

The other thing that the member may want to comment on is whether or not he believes that the 16.5% cut to the personal income taxes effective January 1 should also be taken into account, since it is a permanent income tax decrease for Ontarians.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, a lot of what we are talking about on this issue is around the idea of enabling legislation. I have come to view the Liberal Party as an enabling party: Liberals spend their time here enabling the Conservative government to run its agenda. The Leader of the Opposition has to consider moving out of the free accommodation he gets, because he no longer functions in any form under any definition of opposition whatsoever. It is left up to the New Democrats to oppose bad ideas.

The member used an important word when he said that theoretically the savings will be passed down from businesses. Families who are struggling to get by as it is cannot rely on a business theory that did not work when the GST was implemented, did not work with Reagan trickle-down economics and will not work with the HST. This stuff does not work. We have proven it time and time again. He can live in that fictional reality, that theoretical reality, if he would like, but the fact of the matter is that poor Canadians are going to be on the hook, middle-class Canadians will be on the hook and the rich cats will get away again.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, with regard to this enabling legislation, there is no consultation, there are no committee hearings and there is no opportunity to hear from consumers. I would like to hear an answer from my colleague with regard to why, although we are supposed to be living in a democratic society, this does not appear to be one.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, first nations have not been consulted on this matter whatsoever, which is a constitutional mandate of this place. It has been designed under a federal legislature, and we have received petitions from the AFN and other first nations groups saying that once again Canada is ignoring its duty to first nations people. Here it goes again; the government pretends to care about first nations when it is going to hit them with another new tax.