Debates of Dec. 7th, 2009

Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague who has asked the question.

We, too, find that this is a threat to democracy. It is completely unacceptable that we are being presented with this type of motion.

I will reiterate what I just said. This motion asks us to adopt a framework to study a bill that we have not yet seen.

I have been a member of parliament for almost four years. I do not know if governments often present such motions. I hope not because it goes completely against what I believe in and my convictions.

I believe that if we want to establish a framework for debating a bill that is presented, it is imperative that all members of the House of Commons have had the opportunity to read the bill in question. They would be able to say that it should be studied more quickly for this or that reason. We have not even seen it yet. It is very clear that we will not be supporting this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would see the day that a closure motion would be presented under these circumstances in the House. I recall in 1957 in the pipeline debate, the whole idea of bringing closure in the House at the end of the day meant the end of the government.

The government knew what it was going to be doing with this bill months ago. For several years it has been trying to pressure the provinces to sign on to the HST. To wait until these final days and then bring in a closure motion on top of that before we have even seen a bill and then to have the Liberals fall in line like sheep supporting this bill is a lot to take.

I noticed some of the Liberals running for cover and missing various votes. I am sure there is mass confusion in their camp right now as to what to do with this and how to come up with answers for the big tax shift that is going to occur next July.

As a matter of fact, there are some polling reports. An Ipsos Reid and Canwest News survey showed that 74% of Ontarians get this issue. They are opposed to it. The government is running scared already six months before the tax is going to come in. In B.C. 83% are against it.

We are into almost damage control now on the part of the government, with the Liberals running behind and supporting them.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something. I did not hear many questions, but I will say that if some Liberal members were running for cover, they must have found a good hiding spot because we have not seen them.

It is very clear, once again, from comments made to me, that the NDP members would like to start a debate even before the bill is introduced. They want to debate its possible contents and its scope, when it is very clear that the Bloc Québécois is strongly opposed to this motion because we have not seen the bill that it deals with. It is very obvious that this is unacceptable and anti-democratic.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has been in the House of Commons for quite a long time. I am just wondering whether there have been any other occasions where we have not seen the bill. We do not know what is in this HST bill. We think it might be concerning the HST, but given that we have not even seen this bill, there is this motion to stop the debate and vote on it at 8 o'clock. That is anti-democratic. Has the member experienced such a mad rush to ram through an unseen bill?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to answer my NDP colleague, but I was wondering the same thing myself. I have served in the House for four years. I know that there are members who have been here much longer than that. To my knowledge, in four years I have never seen a motion like this that asks us to vote on the length of debate on a bill that we have not seen. I completely agree that it is anti-democratic and unacceptable.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

I want to list a few things that are going to increase in price with this harmonized sales tax.

One area is gasoline prices. If we are paying $1 for gasoline, we are now going to be paying $1.08. Knowing how these oil companies operate, I would not be surprised to see the increase in gasoline prices go above the 8%. It could go as high as 10%, 12% or 15%, and they would just blame the government because that is how these companies operate.

Another area is utilities: heating, hydro and natural gas. These are essential for people in northern Ontario and northern B.C. In the economic recession that we are having now, this is certainly going to affect every citizen in northern Ontario.

Right now in northern Ontario, we have a company called Vale Inco where there is a strike. We have 3,200 people who are on strike. These people are having a hard time right now paying their bills, but with this harmonized sales tax, they will have to pay more for their heating, hydro and natural gas.

Other areas are Internet bills and prepared foods of $4 or more. There is a real kicker: prepared foods of $4 or more. That will exempt Timbits. I want to quote the senior vice-president of corporate affairs for Tim Hortons, Nick Javor, who said

The company is delighted the government recognizes consumers have become used to the PST exemption on low-cost meals. People are counting their nickels and dimes. Most people spend $2.75 to $3.25 at Tim Hortons...so the 8% that would have been there would have made a difference.

I would like to know, if I could ask him, what Mr. Javor thinks about the poor people who are paying extra for gasoline, something that is essential, and heating oil, something that is very essential in northern Ontario and northern British Columbia.

It is strange that he would make these comments about Timbits and Tim Hortons. I am really concerned about this.

Another thing that will be taxed is adult footwear under $30. The people who buy footwear under $30 are basically poor people, so now they are going to have to pay more. The poor people, people who do not have money are going to have to pay more for footwear.

Other things that will be taxed are veterinary care, personal services, professional services and mutual funds fees. A letter from one of my constituents was very upset about mutual funds. A lot of his clients have lost a lot of money in this recession with mutual funds and now they are going to have to pay 8% more for mutual fund fees.

Membership fees for a gym is an example where the government does not want Ontarians to be fit, so we are going to tax them. Real estate commissions, commercial property rentals, condo fees, landscaping and labour costs related to home renovations will also taxed. The Conservative government is presently giving a rebate for home renovations, so now we are going to take it back with the HST. A really good plan.

Additional items include: vitamins, admission to live theatres, taxi fares, conferences and seminars, dry cleaning, and the list goes on and on, motor vehicle services, ice rink rentals, hotels, overnight summer camps, and domestic air travel. As if domestic air travel were not expensive enough at it is right now, we are going to add another 8% to it. Shame.

Domestic rail travel, bus tickets, and Christmas trees, the government is the grinch that stole Christmas. It is going to tax Christmas trees. Electrical and plumbing services are services we are giving a rebate for home renovations and now we are going to take that back. The government should be ashamed of itself.

The last one I want to mention is funeral costs. We are even going to tax dead people.

There are many people right now going bankrupt in northern Ontario. They are going to have to pay all of these taxes, so I want to quote from an article that was in our local newspaper:

Imagine someone taking a close look at your pay-cheque, monthly bills and expenses and telling you that you need--make that must--learn to manage money better. You are also told that your credit rating is gone. Your bank is now going to pay closer attention to all activity on your account. And those credit cards in your wallet: hand them over. You've had to declare personal bankruptcy. You're flat broke and swimming in a sea of debt. All you have left in most cases is your job and the clothes on your back. In the case of a business bankruptcy, you don't even have that.

These people are going to have to pay more taxes, the HST, because of the Conservatives and the Liberals. Do not forget that the Liberals are heavily involved in this.

I want to quote from another article in our newspaper which is about jobs. We have lost 600 jobs recently in Sudbury and the Nickel Belt:

The number of people working dropped from 77.5% to 76.9%--a loss of some 600 jobs. That continues a string of monthly job losses, including 400 in October, 600 in September and 1,000 in August.

Economics Professor David Robinson, in his monthly labour market analysis posted on the Institute of Northern Ontario Research and Development website reported that “6,200 jobs have been lost in the city in the past 12 months, or about one job in 13. In addition to the loss of jobs in November, 1,300 fewer Greater Sudburians were working or looking for work”.

Now we are going to tax these people even more. They do not have a job or they are bankrupt and now we are going to tax them even more.

I am going to read names of some of the people in my riding who have written to me about this tax. I wanted to know what they thought about the tax. They oppose the 8% HST tax increase being brought in by the Conservative government, along with the federal Liberals and the provincial Liberals.

Marie-René Levesque from Sturgeon Falls wrote to me. Jean-Paul Arbour of Lavigne also wrote to me about this tax. Their comments are always the same. They hate this tax and cannot understand why it is being brought in.

Claudio and Lisa Lenti of Sudbury, Chantal and Russ Edmunds of Sturgeon Falls, Mr. and Mrs. Dan Lachapelle of Sturgeon Falls, Lionel Sarazin of Sturgeon Falls, all of these people are going to have to pay an extra 8% HST on items that they are going to purchase.

The list goes on: Mandy Beaulieu from Sturgeon Falls, Mary Jean Samson from Sturgeon Falls, Bill and Gilberte Major from Sturgeon, Linda Caskanette from Crystal Falls are all going to be paying more on their purchases in the near future.

Madeline Rancourt from Hanmer, Jacob Bailey from Sturgeon Falls, Ron Krajc from Crystal Falls who are all saying the same thing.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that you have indicated that I have one minute left, so I am going to stop reading names. I have a whole list of names.

What I want to do now is read a poem that was sent to me this weekend. It is called “Psalm 2009--First Book of Government”:

McGuinty is the shepherd I did not want
He leadeth me beside the still factories.
He restoreth my faith in the Conservative party.
He guideth me in the path of unemployment for his party's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
I shall fear no hunger, for his bailouts are with me.
He has anointed my income with taxes...HST being the latest
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will live in a mortgaged home forever.
I am glad to be a Canadian
I am glad that I am free.
But I wish I was a dog...
And--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Elmwood--Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is we know that this issue is really being pushed by businesses, so that they can reduce their taxes and make it more efficient for businesses.

However, what it does is it transitions the tax over to the individual. It is a very efficient tax for the government and businesses of course likes it. The only people who do not like it are the consumers who are going to pay more on a whole range of items starting next July 1.

Former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow on CTV News on March 7, 1996, said, “The HST is basically twofold. First of all the shift away from taxation on business and two a taxation on consumers who are already heavily taxed. I think it might have some negatives as we have seen it is having negative implications on the economy. The less money in the hands of consumers, the less they can spend and the economic system suffers as a whole. I had said before that in Manitoba, just in the throne speech a few days ago it indicated that in the case of Manitoba with a million people in the province that the HST would impose more than $400 million in new sales tax costs on Manitoba families at a time of economic uncertainty”.

If we multiply that by the population of Ontario and B.C., we can extrapolate from that an enormous increase. I would like to ask the member to take some time and explain to the members on the government side, who are busy heckling, what the truth of this situation is.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to businesses that were in favour of this harmonized sales tax. I did not get a chance to get through all of the people who wrote me, but some of them who wrote me are business people. They are not in favour of this sales tax. They cannot see anything to benefit them with this sales tax. They are against it. These are small-business owners. They are the ones who are going to get hurt, just like the working class families. They are the ones who are really going to get hurt with this sales tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier today we also talked about the impact on aboriginal communities.

First, I want to congratulate the member on his eloquent speech.

As I mentioned earlier today, Grand Council Chief from the Anishinabek Nation, Patrick Madahbee, had indicated the impact the implementation of the HST would have within first nation communities. He said that the impacts of the HST will hit their communities and citizens hard. He also acknowledged the fact that many of their people live in poverty, or close to it, and with the HST in place, as proposed, they will struggle even more. Their communities have been faced with significant challenges just to maintain or build up the standard of living and the HST works against this. They are worried not just about their own people. He said that impacts will be similar among non-first nations people, especially those on fixed incomes, lower- to middle-class families.

This will impact especially single women, as well.

Could my colleague perhaps elaborate on the impact on first nations in his community? I know that he does have some as well.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. I do have some first nation communities in my district. They are going to be affected seriously. Some of our first nation people are the poorest of the poor. They are going to have to pay this 8% sales tax again, but it is even going to affect them more because of the point of sales effect it is going to have on them.

I am meeting with some of my first nation communities Thursday night and I am sure this is going to be a topic of discussion.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon on Motion No. 8, which is one of the most heinous kinds of motions that a government can bring before a Parliament.

There is no doubt that these kinds of time allocation motions do serve to limit the democratic process and limit the ability of members of Parliament and Canadians to participate in debate on legislation that comes before the House of Commons. When that is combined with the closure motion that the government brought forward this morning, it makes it all the worse.

It is unbelievable that the Conservative House leader, the member for Prince George—Peace River, stood in this place this morning and moved closure on debate on this time allocation motion. He has forced this debate to come to a close today with a vote this evening. His closure motion limits the ability of members of Parliament to challenge the government's process on the HST legislation. It is particularly galling that a member from British Columbia would do that when he knows how unpopular this measure is with British Columbians.

I have a feeling that the people of Prince George—Peace River will have a thing or two to say to the House leader of the Conservative Party for bringing forward this kind of limitation on the ability of Parliament to discuss and debate an important piece of legislation, a tax measure no less.

I am sure that had this been several years ago when that member was in opposition, his head would be spinning at the thought of limiting debate on a tax measure before the House of Commons. It is absolutely incredible. People in Prince George will not be happy with the undertaking that the member moved today.

Limiting time on debate may be justified in certain situations. It may be justified if the government's ability to move its agenda forward is completely blocked or bogged down. In that situation an argument might be made for this kind of time allocation motion.

I say might because I do not believe that is generally the case. It is absolutely not the case in this circumstance. There is no evidence whatsoever that the government has been at all impeded in proceeding on this measure. I would like to believe that we could stop this measure, but the time allocation motion had not been brought before the House before the government moved to limit the time spent debating this measure. There is absolutely no evidence that the government's ability to move this through, to advance its program, was impeded.

Advancing the government's program is how the House of Commons manual on procedures refers to the kind of circumstance where time allocation might be engaged, but in this case there is no evidence whatsoever that is the case.

An argument might be made if there were an emergency that required this kind of time allocation, that required the government to advance everything about the legislative process to get something through the House.

What is the emergency in this case? There is no emergency surrounding the HST. There certainly is no emergency around it in British Columbia. The provincial legislature is not even planning on debating this issue until March or April of next year. The Conservatives, even if they get the go-ahead from the provinces and the House of Commons, are not planning on implementing this legislation until July 1 of next year. There is absolutely no emergency related to this bill.

There is absolutely no excuse for advancing the agenda using time allocation and closure, two of the most draconian measures available to a government, when there is no emergency.

Granted, the Conservatives have a very serious political problem on their hands. I am sure they would love the HST issue to be behind them so that they could enjoy their Christmas vacation, so that they could go on their holidays in the new year, so that they could come back to this place at the end of January knowing that it was not going to be around to bother them. We in the NDP and the people of British Columbia are going to make sure that it is still around to bother them.

There is no excuse for the government having moved on this just because it has a political problem and its provincial government friends in British Columbia have a political problem on their hands. Eighty-three percent of British Columbians oppose the HST. We saw that in polls today done by Ipsos Reid and Canwest and Global National. That is an incredibly high figure. The Conservatives have a huge political problem.

I have noted that the Conservative Party members from British Columbia have been very slow to jump to their feet to defend these measures today in the House of Commons. They have been very slow to say anything in this debate whatsoever about what is going on with this and why. Where is the emergency that means we have to proceed on all of this so quickly? It is a very serious issue.

A tax measure deserves a full debate in the House of Commons. Perhaps a tax measure especially deserves a full debate. In the development of our democracy, we have often seen the call of no taxation without representation. Surely, that is what the government has put to the House today with Motion No. 8. For some reason, we have to limit the debate so severely that it really amounts to taxation without representation.

We have made it impossible for the Standing Committee on Finance to hold hearings on this measure. We have made it impossible for them to travel to British Columbia to hear from people and organizations in British Columbia about the HST. They are ramming it through in four hours of committee work. Four hours of committee work is miraculous progress for almost any piece of legislation that would come before the House of Commons. It is certainly miraculous and unheard of in this situation, where we have a tax measure that is resoundingly unpopular with the people on whom it is being imposed.

We need to make sure that the House of Commons and its members are able to do due diligence. Motion No. 8, which we are debating today, does not allow for that kind of diligence to happen in the consideration of this new tax measure. I am glad that the member for Vancouver East moved and that I was able to second an amendment to Motion No. 8 that calls for hearings in British Columbia and Ontario and that calls for a reasonable timeframe for this legislation, which would allow British Columbians and the people of Ontario to have their voices heard about this legislation.

I hope that members will consider that amendment, although given that the Conservatives and their Liberal friends have moved to squelch debate on this issue, I doubt that the amendment has much of a chance in this place. I think it is particularly outrageous that British Columbians do not get a chance to have their voices heard.

There was a time when Conservatives claimed that they were the big defenders of the voices of western Canadians. They said that they came here to Ottawa to make sure the voices of the west would be heard. The west wanted in. Here we are in a case where the west is firmly opposed to something that the Conservatives are bringing forward and they are not even allowing those people to have their voices heard or to have their say on this legislation.

There will be no hearings in British Columbia. There will be no public consultations in British Columbia. The debate has been severely limited here in the House of Commons. None of that would have been acceptable to those people who came to this place saying that the west wanted in. The government has turned out to be just as distant and just as uncaring as those governments it railed against time and time again when it was in opposition. It is amazing how quickly it forgets its roots when it comes to this kind of issue and a taxation issue nonetheless.

I think it is very important that the government also take responsibility for its actions. We hear it stand time and time again, saying that this is a provincial issue and that it has nothing to do with it. If that is the case, why are we standing here having this debate today? Why is it having to bring in these draconian closure and time allocation measures? Why is there a piece of legislation called Bill C-62, amendments to the Excise Tax Act, on the agenda of the House of Commons if it has nothing to do with federal jurisdiction?

It does have something to do with federal jurisdiction. It requires the action of the House and it requires the action of that government to go forward. It should own up to the responsibility for the actions it is taking and own up to the consequences of those actions. British Columbians are going to be paying more in taxation. Every British Columbian is going to be faced with a higher tax bill in the coming weeks and months.

There is no emergency. There is no problem with advancing the government's agenda. There is a severe problem with the idea of no taxation without representation. It is a very sad day when the Conservatives turn their back on their own constituents in British Columbia and their own history of being a populist party that supports letting the western voices be heard here in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think people back home see through this. If we look at a bill that will override first nations treaty rights, that will squeeze seniors citizens, that will attack the poor and the marginalized, we have to look no further than the Conservative Party. This is its baby.

I find it very shocking that the Conservatives have stood in the House day after day attempting to hide behind the provincial Liberal governments in B.C. and Ontario. If they read the budget of 2006, it said specifically that the government invited all provinces to engage in discussions on the harmonization of the provincial retail sales tax.

The finance minister, on April 10, 2006, said that the government was calling on the remaining provinces that had not harmonized their PST to work with it to accomplish that goal. The National Post, on March 26, said that the harmonization had long been a pet project of the present finance minister.

It is clear, this initiative comes from the Conservative Party and it will affect citizens across Ontario and British Columbia. The government is attempting to shut down the ability of members of Parliament to represent senior citizens, condo owners, first nations and first-time homeowners who will be affected by the finance minister's pet project.

Why does the Pinocchio nose of the Conservative Party continue to grow on the HST?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, another great irony of this whole debate today is the fact that not only are the Conservatives bringing in this legislation against the will of the people of British Columbia, not only are they doing it in a way that belies some of their commitments of the past, some of their very strong and, we thought, deeply held convictions for more democracy in this place and better representation for people of western Canada, but they are doing it at the behest of a provincial government, led by Gordon Campbell, that lied to British Columbians in the last election. It bald-faced lied, saying it had no interest in a harmonized sales tax before the election. What did it do afterwards? It immediately moved to bring in that same HST, that same sales tax.

That kind of behaviour would have been good reason for the Conservatives of old, for the Reformers of old to disassociate themselves from the provincial government. However, no, the Conservative government takes up the challenge, leads the charge, enables that kind of government to bring forward this type of legislation.

That is a significant change in the way the government and the Conservative representatives from British Columbia have chosen to lead the way and to handle their representation of the people of British Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is the former Liberal government had pushed for the harmonization of the sales tax with the provinces. The Conservatives are picking up where the Liberals left off. Fortunately, some NDP provinces, like Manitoba, will not buy into it.

Am I correct in assuming that as far as this issue, this tax grab, the harmonized sales tax, is concerned, the Conservatives and the Liberals are working together to ram this bill through without our having a chance to listen to ordinary Canadians about the impact this tax grab is going to have on their lives?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, this is a planned job by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. In British Columbia, the B.C. Liberals are right on board with this plan. Both of them are moving forward with this much-hated HST.

The irony is this is undoing a lot of the good work, certainly in the area of the environment. For 30 years, British Columbia has had a provincial sales tax exemption on bicycles, bicycle products and bicycle servicing. We know how important it is these days when the concern about the environment is so significant. We know it is very important when bicycles are among the fastest-growing means of transit in some of our cities. Certainly that is true in Vancouver and Victoria. Yet, the HST will apply now to bicycles.

There are all kinds of implications about this HST and the environment that we should be discussing. We are enabling this to go forward. We want British Columbians to have the opportunity to raise these kinds of concerns. The whole concern about ending the HST on energy star appliances is another issue of applying this new tax to those—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a motion introduced last week by the Conservative government. This time allocation motion from the government has to do with the bill to harmonize sales taxes in British Columbia and Ontario with the federal sales tax, the goods and services tax.

In short, the federal government wants this bill, which has not yet been introduced in the House of Commons, to be voted on before it has been seen. That is rather unusual, as the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain pointed out.

The Conservative government has introduced this time allocation motion, and we have been forced to vote on it before even knowing the content and details of this sales tax harmonization bill. What is going on here in the House of Commons is not at all democratic, and I am very surprised to see the Liberals supporting this initiative.

That is why we opposed the motion we are debating, because we still believe it would be completely irresponsible for us to agree to time allocation without knowing the content of this tax harmonization bill or having had the time to study and analyze it.

The Bloc Québécois is a responsible party that always works solely to defend the interests of Quebeckers. We will not hand a blank cheque to a government, especially this Conservative government, in which we have no confidence.

This government has repeatedly shown that it is out of touch with Quebeckers' needs and interests. For example, in the midst of an economic crisis, this government refused to undertake a comprehensive reform of employment insurance in order to increase EI accessibility.

This government came up with a temporary, piecemeal reform that would benefit Ontario's industrial workers. But thousands of forestry workers in Quebec, as well as seasonal workers and young people, have no access to these employment insurance benefits. Moreover, we know that during the economic crisis in the 1990s, the Liberals made deep cuts in EI reforms.

We no longer have confidence in this Conservative government, which is refusing to eliminate the waiting period, thereby penalizing thousands of workers who are unfortunately losing their jobs, such as the people in my riding who lost their jobs after fires at Coloridé in Louiseville and Meubles JLM in Saint-Édouard-de-Maskinongé. The fires were not their fault, but as the holiday season approaches, these workers in my riding have had to endure an unwarranted two-week waiting period. This government does not care about their plight. I have sent a letter to the minister, asking her to waive the waiting period for these workers who have just lost their jobs because of a fire.

We cannot have confidence in this government, which is insisting on creating a single securities commission, despite the unanimous opposition of the National Assembly of Quebec and which is enabling big business to avoid paying billions of dollars of tax by using tax havens, when that money could be put to good use helping the unemployed and low-income seniors.

We see the position on greenhouse gas reductions taken by this government in Copenhagen, to the detriment of Quebec, a position that does not even reflect the will of the House of Commons.

The same is true of the matter before us today. We have asked many questions here in the House regarding the federal government's stubborn refusal to provide Quebec with fair and just compensation for harmonizing its sales tax.

In 1992, Quebec was the first jurisdiction to harmonize its sales tax with the GST.

It is also important to remember that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this ways and means notice—which prepares the way for the introduction of the bill on the framework for harmonizing Ontario's and British Columbia's sales taxes with the federal GST—because we wanted to study this bill much more carefully.

As the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain pointed out, Quebec is still waiting to receive compensation for harmonizing its sales tax, which it did 17 years ago. We have been asking for compensation since that time, but the Conservative government ignores our requests.

The government moved a motion for time allocation before we even saw the bill. We cannot agree with a motion that limits the amount time we have to study the bill we are discussing. The fact that the Conservative government, supported by the Liberals, moved a motion like this is undemocratic and unjustified.

For Quebec, fair and just compensation for having harmonized its sales tax is crucial and important. For several years now, we have been asking this government to act fairly towards Quebec by compensating it for having harmonized its sales tax with the GST, as is the case for Ontario, British Columbia and the Maritimes.

It is important to remind all the members of this House, especially the Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec who were elected to represent the interests of that province, that the federal government's refusal goes against the clear, unanimous position of the Quebec National Assembly.

It is shameful that members who run for election in Quebec and are elected to defend the interests of Quebeckers should act against a unanimous resolution of the National Assembly. That is a dishonest thing to do to voters.

All members from Quebec should listen to me carefully. I would like to again read the resolution that was unanimously passed by the Quebec National Assembly on March 31, 2009:

WHEREAS Québec was the first province to harmonize with the Federal goods and services tax (GST) in the early 1990s;

WHEREAS since then, three Atlantic provinces have harmonized with the GST in 1997 and have received compensation for this from the Federal Government totalling close to 1 billion dollars;

WHEREAS the Government of Ontario announced that it would harmonize its sales tax with the GST beginning on 1 July 2010;

WHEREAS the Federal Government will grant a 4.3 billion dollar compensation to Ontario for this harmonization, an amount that is justified in the Canada-Ontario memorandum of understanding particularly owing to the desire to stimulate economic growth and job creation, and the Federal Government will administer this new provincial tax free of charge on behalf of Ontario;

WHEREAS the Ontario sales tax will be very similar to the Québec sales tax (QST) since certain goods, such as books, will not be subject to the provincial tax and that input tax refunds in Ontario may be identical to those agreed to by Québec for an 8-year period;

WHEREAS Ontario is the fourth province to receive compensation from the Federal Government as part of the harmonization of the provincial and federal sales taxes, while Québec has not received any compensation to this day even though it was the first province to harmonize its sales tax;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT [I urge MPs from Quebec to listen carefully] the National Assembly ask the Federal Government to treat Québec justly and equitably, by granting compensation that is comparable to that offered to Ontario for the harmonization of its sales tax with the GST, which would represent an amount of 2.6 billion dollars for Québec.

This was passed unanimously by all parties in the National Assembly, including the ADQ and the Liberals of Quebec. We know that the federal Liberals want to get closer to the Liberals of Quebec, but here in the House, they are still voting against the interests of Quebec. Naturally, the Parti Québécois voted in favour of the motion.

Contrary to the Conservative and Liberal MPs from Quebec, the elected members of the Bloc Québécois speak for the consensus in Quebec and the interests of Quebec without compromise.

It is with this motion in mind that we intend to follow the debates on this matter and the bill to harmonize sales tax in British Columbia and Ontario with the federal sales tax on goods and services.

Let us not forget in all of this that Quebec was the first to harmonize its sales tax with the new GST in the early 1990s, as I was saying earlier.

At that time, under an agreement with Ottawa, Quebec took on responsibility for the collection of federal tax in its territory.

In 1997, the federal government came to an agreement with three Atlantic provinces over compensation to encourage them to harmonize their provincial sales taxes with the federal GST.

Since then, the three Atlantic provinces have received the equivalent of about $1 billion in compensation.

In light of this, it was completely natural for the Government of Quebec to ask the federal government for compensation, since it had harmonized before the Atlantic provinces. But there is nothing for Quebec. This Conservative government tries to win over Quebec during elections. However, when it is time to vote in the House of Commons, when it is time to present a budget to support the Quebec economy, it never follows through. However, it is always there for its supporters in western Canada, especially those in Alberta and Saskatchewan. As we know the oil industry is very big in those provinces.

An MP from Quebec, Paul Martin, who was the federal finance minister at the time, refused outright to compensate Quebec stating that only those provinces that would lose more than 5% of their sales taxes would be compensated.

It is now clear that the 5% rule invented by the Liberals is no longer valid.

It is clear that Ontario and British Columbia will lose less than 5% of their revenue once they harmonize their sales taxes with the GST, and yet they will be compensated.

It is only right that Quebec should receive adequate compensation. It is only right that all Quebec members sitting in this House of Commons support the unanimous position of the National Assembly, which I read earlier.

We, the members of the Bloc Québécois, will not hesitate to defend this position.

Members should note that Ontario will receive $4.3 billion and British Columbia $1.6 billion in compensation. Only Quebec, the first province to harmonize its sales tax with the GST, has still not been compensated for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST.

The Conservatives still want to hear nothing of it; they turn a deaf ear and find false pretexts to avoid responding to Quebec's demands.

In fact, now that the 5% rule no longer applies, the Conservative government requires that a single tax be collected in Quebec from now on. In other words, it wants us to stop collecting the tax on a tax. It is unbelievable to see the Conservatives interfering in the Quebec nation's areas of jurisdiction like this.

Furthermore, the government is asking Quebec to turn over management of the GST and QST to the federal government, so that it can manage it on behalf of Quebec. It is hard to understand and accept this interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. It is time for us to become sovereign and manage our own taxes, collect our own taxes and sign all of our own international treaties.

The Government of Quebec unanimously agrees that it does not want to turn over management of the taxes to the federal government. It is clear that the Conservative government has not been honest with Quebec, and I cannot believe that elected members from Quebec support the federal government's decision.

As I already said, we will thoroughly study this bill to harmonize provincial sales taxes in Ontario and British Columbia with the GST. We want to ensure that this legislative framework includes provisions that will help negotiations between the Government of Quebec and the federal government result in a solution that is fair to Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois is here to defend Quebeckers' interests. That is why we want to find a fair solution by making sure that the legislative framework to be proposed will provide the necessary flexibility to ensure that Quebec's choices in terms of taxation are permitted and respected. That does not seem to be what the Conservative government and the Liberals want at the moment.

We also have to make sure that the framework will enable Quebec to keep collecting its own sales tax, the QST, and the federal tax, the GST, within its boundaries, which it has been doing since the mid-1990s.

Finally, we want to make sure that compensation offered to Quebec will be the same as that to be provided to Ontario and British Columbia and that already given to the Atlantic provinces. We are not asking for more. We simply want to receive fair and just treatment, which is not currently the case.

We expect the federal government to come up with a proposal that will be fair to Quebeckers. We want it to be just and fair to the Quebec nation and to all of the other Canadian provinces that want to harmonize their taxes.

To summarize, we want the federal government to treat Quebec fairly by providing compensation for having harmonized the provincial sales tax with the GST.

That is why we will oppose the government's time allocation motion to speed up the process to pass a bill that we have not even seen. That is fundamentally undemocratic.

I am ready to answer questions now.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know the HST will hurt residents and organizations alike in B.C. and Ontario. In fact, Adam Hayduk, the executive director of the Vancouver Thunderbirds Minor Hockey Association, was quoted as saying:

We estimate that if the HST was to be introduced, it would cost the Vancouver Thunderbirds Minor Hockey Association an additional $30,000 directly related to the purchase of ice for the youth in our community registered in our hockey program.

If we replicate across the whole province of B.C. and the province of Ontario, we are talking about a huge amount of money that is going to hurt people who do not have a lot of money in the first place.

Now I want to deal with the Liberals because they are the most confusing component of this whole debate. The Liberal finance critic has been quoted as saying, “absolutely what the doctor ordered for the economy”. He is 100% in support of the government bringing in the HST. The former premier of B.C., now a Liberal member of Parliament, is quoted as saying, “It is absolutely horrendous and it's criminal on the part of the Conservative government to be pushing this policy in a time of deep economic recession”. Two very high ranking members of the Liberal Party are totally at odds with another, when we can clearly see this will hurt people and organizations in those two provinces.

Would the member to comment on that situation?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not understand my colleague's question very well. But he is saying that some Liberals are at odds with each other. I do not think that is anything new.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, it is very difficult to run Canada. That is why we want to be sovereign. We want to be able to control our own taxes and negotiate our own treaties. We see what futile debates we have now in the House with the Liberals and the Conservatives. When the Liberals are in power, they run the country and carry out their policies; when they are in opposition, they complain about decisions that were not taken.

To come back to this bill, we are opposed to this motion to limit debate on a bill we have not seen, because it is undemocratic. That is the position we have taken after discussing this issue among ourselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

There are a couple of issues I want to raise in the course of this debate. First of all, we are debating right now a motion on time allocation. Earlier today we saw a shameful vote in this House on closure, which has actually shut off our ability to have a fulsome discussion on this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-62. Once the procedural motion is voted on this evening, we will be forced into a very limited debate on Bill C-62.

Even though this only applies in Ontario and British Columbia at this time, there are British Columbians and Ontarians who live and travel across this country, and what we are consistently hearing from them is that they do not like this HST. In fact, one of my constituents called it the “hated sales tax”.

What we do know is that in the normal course of events, we would have an opportunity at committee to call witnesses from across this country and be able to give people an opportunity to have their say on what they see as both the benefits and problems of the sales tax. Of course, that discussion is now excluded. We are not going to be able to hear from Canadians because we only have four hours at committee, and that is it.

What we have also heard in this House, of course, is that this is a provincial matter. If this is solely a provincial matter, why are we debating it in the House, as the member for Burnaby—Douglas rightly pointed out? Why are we going to be debating Bill C-62 tomorrow or the day after in this House?

The other matter of course has to do with first nations. Clearly the federal government has a responsibility in first nations jurisdictions, because of its fiduciary responsibility. There is an honour of the Crown responsibility that is acknowledged here.

The member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing has talked a number of times about the point of sales tax exemption in Ontario. In British Columbia, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs wrote a letter to the minister on December 2, which states:

HST affects First Nations' ability to earn a moderate livelihood, and it adversely affects our Aboriginal economic rights.... Vague assurances and tax bulletins are insufficient to accommodate.

Your actions to date are not honourable and represent a failure to treat First Nations as equals in a Government-to-Government relationship. We demand a distinct process; public tax bulletins will be a failure to consult and accommodate.

I do not think I could have said it any better. First nations in British Columbia have clearly outlined the fact that they expect to be consulted when we are talking about taxation. There are other pieces of government legislation that give first nations the ability to tax or to be tax exempt, and we would expect the federal government to honour its fiduciary and honour of the Crown responsibilities in that context.

Now I want to talk about British Columbia. In British Columbia, as a number of members have noted, the Ipsos Reid poll for the Canwest News Service and Global National last week indicated that 82% of British Columbians oppose the harmonized sales tax, and 56% of B.C. respondents say they think the HST will hurt the provincial economy.

In case members think it is just New Democrats who are talking about this, I want to turn to a couple of the associations that represent businesses in British Columbia.

Butchart Gardens has put together a study on the impact of the HST on tourism, and I just want to quote a couple of their primary concerns. They clearly lay out in their study the benefits to British Columbia from tourism. They acknowledge that in Canada, tourism is the fourth largest economic driver. One would think that an economic driver of that significance would be consulted when a sales tax is put together. The Butchart Gardens study says that:

Implementing a large new tax on a significant portion of B.C.'s economy will impact consumer confidence and spending levels, and therefore hurts businesses at the end of the supply chain who are labour-based or do not have enough input tax credits to off-set the new tax burden.

This negative 'new tax' effect is greatly amplified due to current economic conditions....

....price elasticity calculations indicate that passing the tax on to our battered consumers will decrease business revenues and thereby reduce government tax revenues generated by impacted sectors....

Considering current economic conditions, what is the cost and scope of risk as measured against predicted HST benefit? Where is this data? Where is this study?

Again, this is what could have been brought up at committee. However, people like The Butchart Gardens, a large tourism attraction in Victoria, have been shut out of any avenue to have their voices heard on the impact on their and other tourism-related businesses.

The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, in an open letter, talks about a recent survey of members in British Columbia. It states that 91% of its members said that a harmonized sales tax will have a negative impact on their businesses; 90% of respondents said their customers will cut back on spending; and 71% said they will have to cut back on staff or staff hours. Those are the restaurants, another key economic driver in British Columbia.

Because we do not have an opportunity to hear from Canadians other than in this very short debate, I want to read some of the emails I have been getting. I have been getting tons of emails on the impact of this harmonized sales tax.

In a letter to the editor of the Nanaimo News Bulletin, Rosina Schmidt wrote:

The HST will have a negative impact on rental housing quality and affordability, especially in Nanaimo.

It will increase most rental housing industry costs, such as property management, repairs and maintenance contracts by seven per cent next year.

The overall costs to operate rental buildings will increase by up to three per cent as a result. That's about $300 per rental unit per year.

We know that many people in rental units are already being squeezed, as are the property owners.

I received an email from Gabriola Island that says:

Please on behalf of the restaurant industry and my own family restaurant... do what you can to prevent the HST from happening. Such an increase in tax will stop a hesitant clientele from coming out to eat in this economically difficult time, especially on a ferry dependent island.

From Nanaimo, Bridget said:

I find myself struggling to make ends meet as the cost of housing, food and transportation has skyrocketed in BC over the past ten years while my wage has stagnated. I have a degree and a “middle class” job and still spend 75% of my income on taxes, rent, utility bills, medical expenses and transportation. Half of my co-workers were laid off recently. I'm trying to save a bit of money to have some financial security in case my job disappears too. I'm worried the HST will push my shoestring budget into the red.

Sean writes that:

My family, that is my Wife and our yet unborn child... will suffer if this tax goes through. We both work, but as the minimum wage is so low...we're having trouble getting by.

The ever-widening margin between wealthy and poor is appalling.

Carol states:

I am a resident on Gabriola Island, a realtor, and a landlord....

Please voice your opposition to the HST legislation, and halt the implementation....

The HST will have a negative impact on rental housing quality and affordability.

Susan says:

....in Nanaimo, I am concerned that the HST will increase most rental housing industry costs such as repairs and maintenance by approximately 7% next year.

Again, we see that a $300 increase in costs per rental unit will have an impact on the affordability of rental units.

Bruce, from Victoria, states:

The introduction of the HST will hit the poor hardest and benefit only big business. It has been said that the savings to business will be passed on to the consumers. If you believe that, I have some property I'd like to sell you in the Florida Everglades.

Peter, from Duncan, comments:

Please know as a senior on a fixed income that I am vehemently opposed to the Harmonised sales tax. It is another erosion of my small income that makes life very difficult.

Harriet remarks that:

my income is less than $11,000.00 per year, not enough to pay taxes....

this province has the second lowest minimum wage in canada with one of the highest costs of living....

....the cost of food has greatly increased....

the number of people using our local foodbank has increased 30% in the past year....

healthcare will become even more unavailable because therapists will increase their fees...over the counter medications will cost more....

education will be farther from my grasp because all aspects of getting to classes...

both the tourism and real estate business are speaking against this tax because their are very aware of the negative impact of an additional 7% on their transactions....

...the ...government said it would not increase taxes. the general public is not so gullible as all these politicians believe, we know the hst is just another cash grab at the expense of those that can least afford it.

Deanna, from Ladysmith, writes:

I am against harmonization of the federal and provincial sales taxes. Please, vote against it.

Deanna, do not worry. I will.

Pat, from Nanaimo, says:

Having been retired for 15 years now, pensions are being eroded daily and many of the 'few' extras we now enjoy will be further out of reach with the implimentation of the HST. Further, we are now finding we can no longer afford to stay in the home we worked so hard to build for retirement....

....consider the plight of many in this province who just cannot afford yet another increase in tax load.

Doug, from British Columbia, says:

What is the logic of introducing a new tax in mid recession? How will it help economic recovery when it will discourage consumer spending?

I work in the restaurant industry which claims the tax will cause a loss of up to $750 Million in business and a loss of up to 10,000 jobs in B.C.

Robert, from Nanaimo, states:

I strongly oppose this tax on the basis that... it is being unfairly implemented in BC, and will place too great a burden on consumers struggling to cope with a recession.

From Karen, we have the following:

As a person on disability I cannot afford a tax hike of any amount. Also my adult children can't feed and clothe themselves as it is!

Another constituent wrote:

I feel bad about it... as I am a senior I can't afford all my prescriptions or my needs. I feel we need to get [the premier of British Columbia] out.... I know you will do your best.

Someone else wrote:

I was outraged and still am outraged. If a party can say anything to get elected then integrity, honesty and our democratic process have all been bypassed.

Of course, what the person was referring to there was the fact that in British Columbia, the provincial Liberals indicated in the provincial election that they would not put in a harmonized sales tax or HST, and as soon as the election was over, they announced a harmonized sales tax. Of course, we are hearing from many of our constituents who are not only enraged about what is happening in the federal House, but also about what is happening in the Victoria legislature as well.

Grace said:

I live in a leaky condo situation—have to pay double unit entitlement on top of that for all new construction done which is very unfair. This tax will certainly cut down my spending!!

Anybody from British Columbia knows full well that people with leaky condominiums have been fighting a long, hard fight to get some justice. Now there will be an additional 7% tax on any construction they need to do to repair their leaky condos. This is a group that is already reeling under the impact of the leaky condo situation.

Another writer says:

This tax hurts the lower income the most!

Another person writes:

Please do your best and make the HST disappear. It'll destroy us.

I have letter after letter, phone call after phone call, telling us this is the wrong tax at the wrong time. If this is such a great opportunity, why will the Conservatives not allow us to hold full committee hearings, so we can hear from the public and business owners and can understand the impact on both consumers and businesses? This tax shift is simply unfair.

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

Madam Speaker, the speech my colleague just made is quite impressive and really speaks to the heart of the matter of how people are not very pleased with the HST and how much it is going to cost them.

The point of sale issue for aboriginals is extremely important because most aboriginals actually live in poverty and an increase in taxes is not good for them.

A self-employed business person in my area, a hairdresser who has a business called Envy Hair Studio & Day Spa and whose name is Debbie Furoy, she said that if the HST is implemented, she is going to lose business because people are already having a hard time paying for haircuts given the economic times.

Maybe my colleague could speak about small businesses and how this is going to impact them.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for that good question and her very good work on the point of sale tax exemption for first nations in Ontario. That is an absolutely critical issue and a treaty right.

I heard the members opposite yelling that this is provincial jurisdiction. I still say that if it is provincial jurisdiction, why are we debating it in the House of Commons? Why is Bill C-62 before the House? If the federal government has no role in this, we would not be having this debate.

When it comes to small business, we know from the Butchart Gardens study that a lot of labour-intensive businesses will not have the same kinds of throughputs that other industries have. They are very concerned about the impact on their businesses.

Hairdressers say that most people go in for haircuts every six weeks and they are expecting people to start putting them off for eight weeks because people in British Columbia cannot afford that extra 7% and in Ontario that 8%. That is an additional 7% or 8% on these services. For many small businesses, their profit margins are very narrow, so they simply cannot afford this additional tax.

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

Madam Speaker, we all know that this Conservative HST deal with B.C. is unfair. It shifts the tax burden onto families and consumers. We also know that it shifts the taxes from big corporations to everyday families. In fact, an average family of four is going to have to pay an extra $1,500 per year.

We also know that B.C. is basically being bribed by the government. It is being given $1.6 billion to sign on to this regressive deal. The real bad news today for the government is this new poll out by Ipsos Reid and Canwest News which indicates that a whopping 83% of the people are against this measure. That is without them even knowing what kind of closure motions the government is bringing down on the House.

Would the member like to comment on what is developing here?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has a minute to respond.