Debates of Dec. 7th, 2009

Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona is absolutely right. In British Columbia, we have an overwhelming opposition to this harmonized sales tax, which is why we call it the hated sales tax. We have an attempt by the government to shut down any opportunity for people to voice their concerns and talk about how it will impact their families, low-income people, seniors and businesses.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have a number of small communities that have small businesses. Those small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. We need those small businesses to stay active and healthy in order to keep our local economies going. In this time of economic recession, they are very concerned about their ability to keep their doors open. Why are we imposing this wrong-headed tax at this particular time?

I talked about this earlier. If the Conservatives think this is such a great idea, why do they not have the courage of their convictions and allow a full, open debate? I am hopeful that the members in the House will support the amendment that was put forward by the member for Vancouver East and allow those committee hearings by the finance committee in both Ontario and British Columbia.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very proud as always to rise in the House representing the people of Timmins--James Bay and to rise in a place that is called the House of Commons. It is called the House of Commons because Parliament was set up to have a voice for the common people, so that the lords and the cronies and their pals could not simply lord over fundamental issues, one of them being taxation, taxation without representation. It was made up of common people who represented various regions.

People watching this back home see the New Democratic Party as being the one party in the House to speak about the issue before us, which is the Conservative government's attempt to take an unwanted tax out of the hide of senior citizens and people on fixed income.

The government does not have the guts nor the willingness to hear from senior citizens nor to hear from small business, so it brought forward a closure motion. We are not even debating the issue of the unwanted HST today. We are debating the fact that the Conservative government is shutting down debate on a bill that the public has not even seen.

Then we look at the Liberals' position. Well I could look at the Liberals, but they are all off at their Christmas eggnog parties. The Liberals say they cannot represent this issue in the House because if they do, the government might make them stay for the weekend and they are off to the beaches of Cuba.

The Liberals and the Conservatives both have one thing in common. Both parties think that by deep-sixing debate they can escape the sensor of the people of Ontario and British Columbia. This speaks to a deep malaise that exists in both the Liberal and Conservative Party. They think that the common people do not need to be heard.

I would like to quote an article in the Toronto Sun from the other day that actually spoke about this. It said :

The July 1 imposition of an unwanted Harmonized Sales Tax on millions of Canadians, which took another step forward on Parliament Hill yesterday, is a symbol of a growing malaise in Canadian politics. It's the increasing disconnection of Canada's political elite, both in the nation's capital and in the provinces, regardless of whether they are Conservatives or Liberals, from the people they are supposed to serve.

Conservative backbenchers think they are going to escape the judgment of average citizens on this issue because they are hiding behind this pathetic fig leaf, saying it is the provinces. It is not the provinces. This comes from the Mike Harris gang. This is the agenda of the finance minister. As the National Post said in early March of this year, “It was a pet project of the finance minister”.

People in Ontario will remember that gang and what the Mike Harris crew did. They were the ones who laughed when people were not able to feed their kids. They were the ones who told them to buy dented cans of tuna if they wanted to feed their families. They were the ones who demonized the poor. A woman who was nine months pregnant, who had received overpayments on her student loans, was considered such a criminal that she was put under house arrest and left to die. We heard nothing from that gang about what they were doing to the poor and to seniors. That is the Mike Harris gang.

That same gang is now in Ottawa. They are trying to pretend that the provinces are doing this, and yet in budget 2006 the finance minister said:

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

On April 10, 2008, the finance minister, who was the right hand of Mike Harris, said:

--we're also calling on the remaining provinces that have not harmonized their PST with the GST to work with us to accomplish that goal of harmonization.

The National Post refers to this as being “the pet project of the finance minister”.

Just recently, members of the wonderful New Democratic government in Manitoba, who did not mind staying up late at night to debate a motion that affected their citizens, said that Manitoba was rejecting an invitation from the federal government to introduce a harmonized sales tax because, as proposed, the HST would impose more than $400 million in new sales tax costs on Manitoba families at a time of economic uncertainty.

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

One million people.

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

On one million people, Madam Speaker.

People back home are certainly going to be wondering why the official opposition, the Liberal Party, is not opposing anything but are going meekly along, held by the chain of the Conservative Party, to get through this because they do not want to deal with the political fallout of their actions. Well, they have to address the political fallout of their actions because they will be profound.

We see seniors organizations, CARP is speaking out, that want to be heard. The Conservatives do not want to let them speak. We have talked to the real estate agents and the real estate organizations that are saying that first-time homeowners are going to be denied the chance to buy a home. This is in a time of a struggling economy. The Conservatives and the Liberals are shutting down those voices from coming forward.

We have spoken with the people who are in financial planning, who are trying to help people make their savings, who are saying the additional 13% in Ontario and 12% in British Columbia will have devastating effects. In fact, we even hear Liberal members standing and saying that this is an issue that has to be addressed.

Yet, the Liberal leader and the Conservative leader are saying that such issues of effects of a major shift in the tax burden from the corporations to senior citizens, to those on fixed incomes, that is something that the House of Commons is not going to debate. I say it is pitiful of the Liberal Party members. If they are not going to do the job they are paid to do, they should just leave early and head off to the beaches of Cuba now. People paid them to come and stand up to this gang of Mike Harris cronyites and the former reform party.

This is a serious issue. We are talking about a massive shift in the tax burden. The Conservatives are trying to move it through quickly. They do not want to have people review what is in this legislation. They do not want to have witnesses.

I would like to ask anyone from the Liberal or the Conservative benches to have the guts to stand up in this House and tell us whether or not they have crunched the numbers on what it is going to cost at the gas pumps? I know they have. They know what it is going to cost. They do not want the public to know. They do not want the public to know what it is going to cost. They do not want the public to know what it is going to cost to seniors who are living in downtown condos on fixed incomes.

They want this to go through because they think the public is stupid. They think the public can be spun off with their cheap ten percenter attack ads and their wedge issues and their mailings, accusing people of being anti-Semitic. They think they can create these sideshows so that people will lose sight of the fundamental fact of what is happening here in the House of Commons, which is that we have a Conservative Party, aided by its very weak colleagues in the Liberal Party, putting political expediency above the interests of senior citizens.

I read the newspapers all weekend. I watched television. I was on Google every 20 minutes. I wanted to know what action was being taken to respond to the concerns of citizens. We are getting hundreds of calls. We are getting thousands of letters. We know this is a serious issue.

The premier of Ontario said that he had never heard a single complaint. I find that hard to believe. The backbench Conservatives have said that it does not really affect them even though it was their idea in the first place. Then we looked at what the federal Liberals were talking about. Well, they were all meeting at the Château Laurier with Yon Brutus from York Centre, making their plan to get rid of the visitor from Harvard.

Let us think about it, what is up with this party that it is always the average people who can sit and wait until they finish their treats. It is like watching the last days of the Roman Empire with the Liberals in their togas, sitting at the Château Laurier saying, “I think I should, as a young Liberal, be chosen as the right hand of whoever is going to take out the present Liberal Leader”.

These were the shenanigans they were doing this weekend, when they should have saying, “How do we stop the HST? How do we actually deal with the fact the government is bringing closure on a bill on taxation that will silence the voice of members of Parliament from representing their constituents, their senior citizens, their first nations whose treaty rights are being abrogated across the board?”

No, they were all over at the Château Laurier saying, “I can get this post, and you can have that post, if we just get rid of the latest Liberal figurehead”. Meanwhile, the Conservative juggernaut moves on. I find it an appalling abdication of their fundamental responsibility to fight back against this right-wing agenda.

We talk about the growing malaise in the House of Commons. We saw young people risking their lives today on the roof of the Parliament Buildings to remind the government about its failure on the tar sands, and who supports the Conservative government? It is the Liberal Party. It is shameful.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that Canadians in Ontario and British Columbia are in need of a fair bit of information about exactly what is being proposed. I do not believe that either province has put out its legislation yet to get the details. It is very likely that people's impressions are based simply on the information they are getting from those who are making statements now.

Interestingly enough, if we said “tax grab”, describing the HST in Ontario and then we asked people in Ontario how they felt about a tax grab, they would say they do not like it. All of a sudden there would be a very large number of people who do not like it, even though there is not a piece of legislation out there.

If a person were to go to the Ontario government website, in which it lays out the framework of it, the representation is that the Government of Ontario will actually have reduced revenue under the harmonized system. It will go down. Its deficit will be some $24 billion. This initiative is a job creator and a business investment creator.

Would the member care to admit whether or not he has seen the Ontario or the B.C. legislation? If not, how can he assess what the impact will be on people?

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

Madam Speaker, I am actually thunderstruck. I am at a loss for words. The member said that we need more information, but what is he doing? He is supporting a closure motion to prevent debate on this issue. This is pitiful.

Then he does the classic, “You little people do not know”. He said that maybe people get confused and upset and if only they went to the Liberal Party website, they would learn better things.

Paul Bailey, president of the Police Pensioners Association spoke very clearly and coherently about this. He asked why seniors were being targeted. Gerald Gibson, who represents 4,000 condominium owners, spoke of the effect it will have on seniors. We hear from the president of the Ontario Real Estate Association that this will price first-time home buyers out of the market.

Yet my Liberal colleague seems to think that if only these people went to the Liberal website, they would not be so confused, that it is very easy to get all hot and bothered about a bill on taxation.

I would ask the hon. member, why is he being so gutless and why is he allowing this closure motion to go through without information?

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

Madam Speaker, we talked about point of sale throughout the day. I was just wondering if my colleague was aware that the point of sale does not only impact first nations, but it actually impacts farmers as well.

Currently farmers in Ontario have to show their farm organization card and they get the point of sale tax rebate right away. However, they will not be able to do that.

Given that farmers have been having a very difficult time for quite a few years under the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government, maybe he would like to speak to the impact of the HST on farmers.

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

Madam Speaker, what cattle owners in my riding are getting paid for culled cows now is what they were getting paid in the 1980s, yet what are their input costs? Compare the price of diesel in the 1980s to today, and the price of food and then this tax is added.

The government shows no interest in farmers. It will crush them with this tax. I would also like to mention first nations. First nation treaty rights are a federal obligation, and the Liberal Party members seem to think that they can walk away on that and the federal Conservatives think they can walk away on it. In a region like mine, where we have cattle farmers, where we almost lost our pork industry, where we have lots of first nations, these people will be taking it right on the chin for the political expediency of the Prime Minister and the Liberal leader from Harvard.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North who has been championing the fight against the HST in this place. I am really honoured to have the opportunity to share some time with that good gentleman.

I am going to start with some history. It is kind of appropriate. We all know that Prime Minister Mulroney was the father of the GST. I guess we would have to say that Mr. Chrétien was the handmaiden who delivered the GST ultimately. I was in the 1993 election when we fought against the GST. I recall very clearly the Liberal Party of the day taking the position that it would oppose the GST. Then what did we have? We had the GST.

Later on we can recall that Sheila Copps was the member for Hamilton East at the time. She was a fighter who kept her word in this place. She had given her word that if the GST went forward, she would resign her seat. Ms. Copps did that. She resigned her seat in 1996. I was the person who came second to her in that fight. I will say one thing about the good people of Hamilton East. When they returned Sheila Copps to this place, they did not return her because they were endorsing the GST. They returned her because of her sense of honour and the fact that she had kept her word and resigned. The people respected that.

I want to bring us to the current Conservative government. It is following the tradition. There are two Liberal governments, one in Ontario and one in B.C., pushing ahead with the HST. The government will go down in history as another relative of value added taxes.

Think of it this way. We hear the people on the government side in particular saying that it is not our jurisdiction. If it is not our jurisdiction, if the bill were to be defeated and it did not go ahead, there would not be an HST in B.C. or Ontario. Therefore, it is our responsibility in this place.

I have heard members of the NDP in this place calling across the chamber to people on the government side and the Liberals asking them to join with us in this fight.

In 2005 and 2006 when I ran in the election, one of the things that I said to the good folks in my riding, and I have repeated it here many times because I am proud of it, was that I was going to represent the people to the government instead of representing the government to the people. I say to the members here today, if they are honest about the needs and wants of their constituents, they will know that a high percentage of their constituents do not want the HST.

There is no way to pass this off or hand it to someone else. This is a reality. The government of the day is putting forward $2 billion for B.C. and I understand about $6 billion for Ontario to facilitate this HST move.

We know from information that was given to us earlier today that they were talking about the HST a year ago, prior to both the B.C. and Ontario elections. It is ironic that the Liberal governments that were elected in both of those provinces decided not to share with the people voting for them that they were going to implement the HST.

Why in the world would they not want to share that during an election campaign? The reason might be that they would lose if they had told people that.

If we look at the polls in the province of B.C. today, and if that election were held today, the Liberals in that province who decided to withhold that information from people would be turfed.

I want to get to a more current time. In the summer I was crossing the country talking to seniors, listening to their problems. I recall one place in Hubbards, Nova Scotia where there was a gathering of probably 150 seniors who were out for a good time. There was music playing. People were playing bingo and having a wonderful time at Hubbards barn. We started chatting with them about the problems they were having. Of course taxation was one of their big concerns.

Then I went to B.C. The whole dialogue started to change. There people were completely focused on the HST and the damage it would cause.

In this place, because my critic area is seniors and pensions, I have talked at length about those seniors in Canada who live in poverty. A little under 300,000 people cannot make it through the month now. A majority of them live in B.C. and Ontario. They live in the metropolitan areas and that is where there is the biggest problem.

When I was in Elliot Lake, a woman told me about her hydro bill. It is one of the prime examples I use. This woman was sitting quietly in the gathering and she put up her hand timidly and said, “My hydro bill is $2,100 a year. What am I going to do? Where am I going to get the $160 it will take?” To people in many places who are fully employed, $160 is not a huge amount, but for people who are on fixed incomes, whether it is a pension or long-term disability, they are going to have severe problems because of this change.

In my community of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek a lot of small businesses are very concerned. The Hamilton area has lost tens of thousands of jobs in manufacturing over the last 20 years. Many of those displaced workers are people who are willing to work. They went out and started small businesses in the hope that they could regain the future they felt they lost when they lost their employment. Now they are facing the fear that the small margin their businesses have is going to be eroded by this very unwanted tax.

Prior to coming to this place, I was on the Hamilton Tourism Board. We were in a panic about what impact the changes to the passport legislation in the United States would have particularly in the province of Ontario. A member talked about the tourist industry and hunters who would come to northern Ontario close to the Manitoba border. A person in Ontario might entice people to come to Canada but the neighbouring province of Manitoba does not have the HST. The person in Ontario who is trying to get by all of a sudden has an 8% liability which the people in Manitoba, where there is a good NDP government, do not have to face.

I am very concerned about this. I have been hearing from people in my hometown and other places.

Bob and Nancy live in Hamilton and have a very simple message. They said to please add their names to the list of people objecting to the proposed HST. They said that as seniors, the added tax on heat and hydro alone will be enough to push them over the edge of poverty. I received that message today at 12:58 p.m.

I received one from a young lady named Chantal at 2:22 p.m. today. People are just starting to understand what can happen to them. She said that she and many others do not agree with the 8% increase on taxes. She is a single mother to a beautiful five-year old daughter. Every week she gets paid she only has $20 extra for the week. In referring to this place, she said, “You are making it very difficult to survive in this world. Please, please do not increase the taxes. I don't know what will happen if you do”.

I am sure members from every other party, if they checked with their staff, are receiving emails, letters and telephone calls on this situation and how terribly negative it will be for people. I plead with members to take the time to look at this issue properly and give it consideration for those people on fixed incomes who will not only be damaged, but they will be seriously hurt by the HST.

I call on all members here to do as I mentioned at the outset, to represent their constituents to the government instead of representing the government to their constituents.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very important for members to reflect the mood of the people. After listening to a number of speeches, the fact is that nobody in this place has seen the legislation from the province of Ontario or the province of B.C. Ontario's legislation is going to be passed by Christmas. The B.C. legislation probably will not be passed until March. It will be a while before the final deal.

I wonder if the member has seen the memorandum of agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia. Could he indicate to the House what specific provisions there are with regard to the enactment of the bill?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have not seen that document personally. However, we in the province of Ontario have not had the opportunity to see the document either. As a representative from Hamilton in the province of Ontario, I am very concerned that we have to make a decision in this place without having the pertinent information before us.

That is why we called for an extended debate. That is why we proposed an amendment to take this to committee and allow people to understand clearly and fully what they have been asked to accept.

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

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member for Timmins—James Bay talked about how Manitoba had reported in its November 30 throne speech that the harmonized sales tax in Manitoba, which has slightly over one million people, would impose more than $400 million in new sales tax costs.

If one does the math and calculates what it would cost for Ontario, I think it would be a spectacular result to throw out to the member for Mississauga South. The reality is the public is already opposed to this legislation. Regardless of what could be in the Ontario memorandum, the fact is a whopping 74% of people in Ontario are opposed to this legislation, without even being aware of the kind of time allocation and closure procedures in which the member for Mississauga South and his Liberal Party are involved. They are aiding and abetting the Conservatives.

We have a good head start. We have the government on the run and we want to keep it on the run.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not have a calculator with me and I will not try to do those figures in my head. This summer, when I went through Ontario and British Columbia, I talked to hundreds of seniors and listened to them. Not a single senior said that he or she wanted an HST. None said that they wanted to have the corporate taxes lowered in their province so they could pay more.

Beyond that and worse than that, seniors are fearful. They are frightened. People need to pause in this place. Tens of thousands of people across the country are terrified of this HST.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member indicated, they are terrified of something they have not seen. It could very well be that they are being given misinformation. In fact, the revenue of the province of Ontario will go down, but the details are at the provincial level.

Nothing we vote on here will have anything to do with what is taxed and what is not taxed. The member should admit it. That is the issue. He should not be misleading people into thinking that there is something we can do here. It is a deal between the federal government and the province.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recommend that the member visit www.blockthehst.ca, look at the calculator, see what will happen when he puts in his normal expenditures and then try to relate that to seniors. It is a value-added tax and value-added taxes penalize the poor.

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

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today against the harmonized sales tax and the way it is being rammed down our throats.

Northern Ontarians will be punished more than anyone else in Ontario under the yoke of this tax because we in the far frozen north already pay more for gas, home heating and transportation than people from the sunny south. This new tax will only widen the cost of living gap between north and south Ontario.

It is supposed to increase our competitiveness and productivity according to the Conservatives, but to do that, it shifts the tax burden from big businesses to families. That is the wrong way to balance our books, and the middle of the deepest recession in decades is the wrong time to do it.

This tax is inherently regressive. It hits those who have no choice but to spend large portions of their income and it favours those with income to save. Those with the lowest income have no choice but to pay it and sacrifice elsewhere. This HST will hit those hardest who can least afford it overall.

An average family of four will have to pay about $1,500 per year more in my riding. The number of items they will see tax hikes on is astounding. I will not read the whole list, but here is a sampling: gasoline, Internet bills, mobile phone bills, hydro, home heating oil and gas, mutual fund investments, snow removal, ice rink rentals, taxi fees, kids' hockey for goodness' sake, air fare, train and bus tickets, new homes, dry cleaning, carpet cleaning, haircuts, home renovations, commercial property rights, campgrounds, vitamins, gym fees, green fees, accounting fees, legal fees, landscaping, postage, veterinary fees, motor vehicle services such as towing, magazines, and the list goes on. Even our funerals will cost 8% more.

Why on earth are we even considering this bad idea? The government says that it is supposed to help business, and maybe it will help some of its big business friends, maybe that is true, but many small businesses have written to me saying that they are opposed, no matter what the corporate elites in the Ontario Chamber of Commerce say.

I would like to quote the Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey of 105,000 of its members. Fully 75% of its members fear the HST will be a big negative. Their customers, facing such a high tax on local products and services, will be driven to the underground economy, to online foreign suppliers, or simply not make that purchase at all.

CFIB's Ontario director said, “Governments have clearly dropped the ball in their handling of this critical tax reform initiative”. He went on to say, “the decision to finalize the terms and conditions of the HST, without public consultation, has generated mixed reviews and serious concerns within Ontario’s small business community”.

Voters have long enough memories to remember the GST. The auditor general found, when the GST was introduced, that many people took their activities underground to avoid paying the tax. With the way the HST is structured, there will be a lot more attempts at tax avoidance and a lot of out-shopping.

Does the government really think it is good fiscal policy to bribe the Ontario and B.C. governments with over $6 billion of taxpayer money, borrowed on the open market, to raise our taxes? This, at a time when it is running an astronomical debt.

Here is an idea for the Minister of Finance, who claims to be helping small business. Instead of raising taxes on ordinary people, why does the Minister of Finance not cut small business taxes instead? That is a much better way to increase our competitiveness and productivity on a similar scale, plus it has the added bonus of increasing innovation in our economy, something the HST will not do.

There is also the question of how this tax is being rammed down our throats in the most undemocratic way imaginable. Suspending democracy in this way to ram legislation through in mere hours might be expected in war time or in the case of a national emergency. However, this extraordinary measure is being used to impose the tax on Ontarians and British Columbians without consultation. Really the minimum we can do here is to hear from ordinary Ontarians and British Columbians about the HST. We need some public participation and co-operation here. This will impact their lives in so many ways.

I myself find the fact that committee only has four hours to study the bill when we see it, and until 3 a.m., to be ridiculous. Is the committee actually supposed to do its due diligence under such conditions?

The Liberals should be joining us to demand transparency and accountability from the government instead of once again giving it a blank cheque. Instead, the Conservative government, supported by the Liberals, has pushed Motion No. 8 to limit democracy.

People across my riding and across northern Ontario have written to me on the HST, including many first nations, wanting to know why we would not be consulting with them, asking if there were not treaty rights on taxation to be considered. In fact, residents of my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North, whether members of first nations or not, would like to be consulted on the HST before it is imposed on them.

The Liberals and Conservatives, supported by the Bloc, in their HST coalition, and we remember coalitions here, apparently do not want to hear from them or from other Ontarians or British Columbians. Residents of northern Ontario will be astounded at the actions of the Conservative MP for Kenora and the Liberal MP for Nipissing—Timiskaming, who have both voted to impose the HST and betrayed their own constituents.

They must know that we were sent here to Ottawa to represent our constituents. I know their constituents overwhelmingly reject this tax grab. They are not standing up for those constituents. Instead they are voting to ram the HST through with no consultation, no chance for committee study and a severely constrained debate.

Apparently they are fine suspending democracy to do it. They are fine with not even being able to see the bill we will be voting on until literally the last minute. I guess I should not really be surprised by this. This is really just more of the same regressive policies of Conservative and Liberal governments.

It is another tax grab in the grand old tradition of the GST, that other Conservative tax. Remember when the Liberals promised to scrap it and then did not when they got in. There is not much light between the Liberals the Conservatives on this issue or many others. They boost returns for corporate elites on the lame excuse that they will use those returns to benefit the rest of us. Do they seriously expect us to believe that the oil companies will pass the savings on to us at the gas pumps?

The Conservatives also claim this is a provincial decision, another yarn Canadians do not believe. If this is purely a provincial decision, why is the finance minister on record selling this tax to the provinces? Why is his signature on agreements with Ontario and B.C.? Why are we voting for it, in just a few hours, here in Ottawa and not in Toronto?

I am proud that the NDP was the only party to have consistently fought the GST, which was a Conservative tax grab that became a Liberal legacy. The HST was also a Liberal idea and now it is a Conservative plan. My party, once again, has been the only one that consistently opposes it as well.

I am proud to stand today with New Democrats to once again fight the HST in Ontario and British Columbia.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think by now those who might be viewing the debates are probably totally confused about who is implementing the tax. It is the provinces. It is the province of Ontario and the province of B.C.

What the federal Parliament is doing now is looking at amendments to the Excise Tax Act to permit the agreements that were signed between the Government of Canada and the provinces to harmonize their taxes.

The member was using the words “tax grab”, but he knows the truth is that Ontario's revenues will go down over this. They are not going up. It is not a tax grab. They know its deficit is going to be some $24 billion. They know that it will create over 500,000 new jobs for people who do not have jobs today. They know it will create capital investment of $47 billion, which is necessary to sustain those jobs and help our economy to recover. They know the income tax cuts of 16.5% for the majority of Canadians, means that 93% of Canadians will be better off, will offset any additional cost if they reduce the number of exemptions.

It is easy to come up with a list that there is going to be a little more here, but not one of those members said in his or her speeches, not one of them yet admitted that there would be income tax reductions commencing on January 1, 2010, even though the HST does not come in until July 1, 2010. Why is the member not prepared to tell all—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to give the hon. member an opportunity to answer.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

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

Madam Speaker, this will be very brief. If the hon. member believes that drivel, he is really on the wrong side of the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Mississauga South addressing some of the realities that relate to the bill, in spite of the fact that the NDP members seem to live in their own world on this.

I find it rather interesting that the member just said the NDP was proud of the fact it opposed the GST. It is interesting to me that when our government reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, every one of those members opposed those reductions.

Would the member tell us when the NDP has ever reduced a tax?

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

Madam Speaker, the very fine NDP government in Manitoba, over the last 10 years, has reduced tax on small business on the first $500,000 of net income from 11% to 1% and it will go to zero per cent next year. It has been a huge economic multiplier. The NDP is the party that cares about small business rather than big business, and we look forward to working to be sure that we truly take the load off.

I would like to make a prediction. I will predict that due to the fact that the Conservatives gave their big business friends $50 billion or $60 billion in tax cuts, we will soon see the GST increased back up to 7% to provide for the revenue that we are going to need nationally to balance the books.

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

Madam Speaker, when the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River spoke a little earlier, he talked about how tourist camp operators in northwestern Ontario are going to be losing business to the same types of operations in Manitoba because it is going to be cheaper to do business there. There is also the issue of air fares now being cheaper in travel agencies in Winnipeg and border communities in Ontario are going to be hurt by this.

Does the member have any observations on that potential problem?

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

Madam Speaker, I share the concern of the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. He is very correct in that we are going to continue to drive tourists away from Canada at a time when we should be growing tourism rather than driving it away.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to a motion that would limit the time for debate in this House on the very important issue of harmonizing the sales tax with the GST. We are currently debating a time allocation motion, moved by the government, regarding the bill to harmonize the British Columbia and Ontario sales taxes with the federal GST, the goods and services tax.

I will explain why we will vote against this government motion. I think it is important to understand that we are in favour of having the government prepare a bill on the framework for harmonizing the Ontario and British Columbia sales taxes with the federal GST, but we are opposed to the fact that it wants to limit the amount of time spent debating it.

This bill is extremely important to us. I do not understand why the government would want to limit the amount of time we need to do all the work required on important issues like this one. I remind members that at the start of the debate on this motion, we did not have a copy of the bill in hand. The government wanted parliamentarians to debate here, in this House, before the bill had even officially been introduced. We should have never been put in that kind of situation. It makes no sense. In his speech last Thursday, the member for Joliette spoke about this situation at length.

The Bloc Québécois will give the government bill the attention it deserves. We must ensure that the bill does not interfere with negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa regarding the $2.6 billion in compensation for harmonization. The government is trying to ram through this bill by moving a time allocation motion. That is not what we want. We believe it is our duty to examine the bill before we vote on such a motion.

Quebec has been demanding compensation for more than 10 years now. It is unacceptable that this issue still has not been resolved. We have a unanimous motion by the National Assembly of Quebec asking the federal government to treat Quebec 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 for Quebec.

We intend to study this bill thoroughly. It is our responsibility to do so. We will not agree to the government's proposal that we not look carefully at all the details of this bill. The federal government cannot think that we are going to hand it a blank cheque. I can assure the House that we will not.

Quebec was the first province to harmonize its tax, and we want the federal government to come up with a solution that is fair to Quebec. That is not what is happening. In the past, the federal government had a habit of announcing bills that seemed quite fine at first blush. But we unfortunately would find out after a few hours of debate that they contained poison pills. Now, we are being asked to pass a bill after two days of debate. This is unthinkable, for the reasons I have just explained.

The Bloc Québécois will take the necessary steps to study this bill in detail, in order to detect the injustices to Quebec. The finance minister's 2006 statement penalizes Quebec. I am talking about the statement on page 68 of his 2006 budget. Under the heading Competitiveness and Efficiency of the Canadian Economic Union: Furthering Provincial Sales Tax Harmonization, we read the following:

Harmonized sales taxes are now in place in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Quebec administers a provincial value-added tax, as well as collecting the GST on behalf of the federal government. However, separate provincial retail sales taxes continue to be collected in five provinces. The existence of provincial retail sales taxes substantially increases the effective tax rate on investment by taxing business capital goods and intermediate materials, thereby impairing the competitiveness of our tax system. Having to comply with different sales tax systems also greatly increases the complexity and the cost of doing business. The Government invites all provinces that have not yet done so to engage in discussions on the harmonization of their provincial retail sales taxes with the federal GST.

In this excerpt from the 2006 budget, the Minister of Finance never mentions anything about retroactive compensation for Quebec. That is what we are asking for. The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to fully recognize retroactive compensation for Quebec. I would point out that over the past ten years, several finance ministers have recognized that Quebec has harmonized its sales tax with the GST.

To date, every province that has agreed to harmonize its sales tax with the GST has been compensated, except Quebec. Quebec will probably never be compensated as long as this government fails to recognize the principle of retroactivity. This government's failure to recognize the first government that harmonized these taxes is very worrisome and unfair.

As for the Government of Quebec, the letter from the finance minister of the day, Monique Jérôme-Forget, was quite clear. I am referring to her letter dated March 27, 2009, which my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, read in part during his speech last Thursday. The current minister, Minister Bachand, has reiterated the Government of Quebec's expectations.

I have a little time left to remind the House of the nature of the dispute between Quebec and Ottawa over compensation. It is crucial that the members of all the other parties acknowledge Quebec's situation and the injustice it faces regarding compensation, which should have been paid long ago. Over ten years have gone by, and this issue remains unresolved. It is not fair.

In 1990, the Government of Quebec signed an agreement with the federal government to harmonize the GST and the QST. It provided for a gradual harmonization over two years.

In July 1992, Quebec finished harmonizing its sales tax with the federal tax.

In addition to harmonization, Quebec also negotiated an agreement to manage the GST for the federal government. As a result, the Government of Quebec collects and administers the GST within Quebec. In exchange, the government pays Quebec every year for providing this service.

On April 23, 1996, the federal government and the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador signed memorandums of understanding to harmonize the GST with the three provincial taxes.

Six months later, the parties signed detailed agreements under which a new HST of 15% would be introduced in the three provinces on April 1, 1997.

Under those agreements, the federal government undertook to pay the three provinces $961 million over four years—$349 million in each of the first two years, $175 million in the third year, and $88 million in the fourth year—to offset half of the revenue loss caused by harmonization.

To induce the provinces to adopt the HST at a rate of 15% in the Atlantic provinces and 14% elsewhere in Canada, the federal government had offered to pay such compensation if the loss of revenue exceeded 5%. This “adjustment assistance” was based on a formula that applied to all Canadian provinces and covered all of the difference for the first two years, 50% in the third year, and 25% in the fourth year.

According to this formula, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia would not see their revenues from their respective sales taxes reduced by more than 5% under a harmonized system of 14% or 15%. As a result, they would not have been entitled to assistance if they had agreed to harmonization under the memorandum of understanding of April 23, 1996.

The arrival of the Conservative government changed things. While harmonization of sales tax seemed to have stalled, the Conservatives, in their first budget, relaunched the idea by opening the door to new negotiations on harmonization. We might have expected the situation in Quebec to be resolved, but that did not happen.

I read an excerpt from the 2006 budget at the beginning of my speech. It is the passage where the government excludes Quebec from the compensation it is entitled to, which is at the heart of the dispute between Quebec and Ottawa.

In the meantime, the Conservatives have reiterated their intention to keep talking about harmonization in every budget and subsequent economic statement.

When the Government of Ontario brought down its budget on March 27, 2009, it announced it was receiving $4.3 billion from the federal government for harmonizing its sales tax.

On March 30, the Minister of Finance announced he would be open to compensation for Quebec if Quebec completely harmonized its tax with the federal government.

On March 31, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion on tax harmonization and fair compensation from the federal government.

On April 1, the former finance minister announced that she would completely harmonize the provincial tax with the federal tax by creating a credit for inputs of large businesses. She wrote to the Minister of Finance to share her intentions.

In response to the Quebec finance minister's letter, the federal finance minister set even more new conditions for payment of compensation to Quebec.

First, the federal minister stated that from that point forward only one tax would be collected. In other words, we would stop collecting a tax on a tax. He added that Quebec would have to have to hand over responsibility for collecting the GST and the QST to the federal government, which would then administer the tax on behalf of Quebec.

For the Government of Quebec, giving up the administration of taxes to the federal government is out of the question.

To add insult to injury, the federal government announced in May that it intended to provide $1.6 billion in compensation to British Columbia for harmonizing its sales tax. Thus, It broke its own rules on harmonizing the sales tax and offered generous compensation to Ontario and British Columbia while stubbornly refusing to offer Quebec fair and equitable compensation.

That is why we must always study this type of bill carefully.

I would like to summarize the Bloc Québécois position.

In the matter before us, there is a disagreement, a dispute between the Government of Quebec and the federal government. I acknowledge that. I am anticipating my colleague's question on Parliament's responsibility to deal with the matter.

In the current situation, the government and citizens of Quebec are penalized. We will not ignore this injustice.

The government moved a closure motion for a bill that had not yet been introduced in the House. That is the first dispute.

The government began debating this motion even before the bill was introduced in the House. We will deal with the bill tomorrow in the House but, last Thursday, when the motion was moved, the bill was not yet in our hands.

The Bloc Québécois had to speak to the motion even before having studied and analyzed the tax harmonization bill in detail. We must be prudent and take the time to examine all the details of this bill.

The Bloc Québécois, on principle, will never give the government a blank cheque.

On principle, the Bloc Québécois is also opposed to closure motions on such an important matter that has an impact on Quebec's finances.

For all the reasons given, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is a very persuasive member. She does her homework and argues her case well.

With regard to the closure motion, which is the issue before us now, the member probably is aware that the province of Ontario has indicated that it wants to have its legislation in place and passed before Christmas, so that it can start delivering income tax cuts to Ontario residents on January 1 even though the HST would not come in until July 1.

I would suggest to the member that there is probably a reason why the federal government, in terms of its arrangements with Ontario, has acceded to moving this now even though the enabling legislation, amendments to the Excise Tax Act, is not necessary until March 31 according to the memorandum of agreement. That certainly is one reason for the closure motion. In my own view, if this is going to help economic recovery in any province or any territory in Canada, it is an important consideration.

My question for the member has to do specifically with the Quebec situation. She indicated that the discussions were around more fully harmonizing the tax systems in Quebec. I am not sure that I fully understand what is not there yet. It would appear that there is still some disagreement as to whether or not there is full harmonization. I wonder if the member would care to elaborate a bit further.