House of Commons Hansard #187 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was transportation.

Topics

9:20 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-44.

“Pleased” is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration because I do not really know where to begin talking about Bill C-44, which is 290 pages long and affects about 30 different acts and some 450 sections.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, I have had the privilege of spending several hours examining the bill and even doing a clause-by-clause study. I would have liked to speak to the House about several aspects of the bill, but I will focus on just a couple. I will speak about those aspects I believe are the most important ones to address in today’s debate. I will be trying to persuade my colleagues on all sides of the House to support the amendments proposed here at the report stage. These are mostly to remove some of the bill’s provisions that we believe are bad.

We are not alone in thinking this; sometimes, even the Conservatives agree with us on this. The Bloc Québécois and the Green Party also proposed amendments at committee, and once again, at the report stage, they have tried to improve, if that is possible, Bill C-44 by removing some of the more highly problematic parts that witnesses repeatedly brought to the committee’s attention. I will therefore speak to the House about some of these issues.

First, although I decry the length of the bill, I must say that I am very disappointed, as the national revenue critic for the NDP. I myself have asked the Minister of National Revenue several times in the House about combatting tax evasion. I have urged her to act on the issue of combatting tax evasion. Unfortunately, Bill C-44 would have been a good opportunity to introduce a few meaningful measures to fight tax evasion, measures that were even in the motion we recently put forward, I believe in March. This motion, which aimed to more effectively combat tax evasion, received the Liberal government’s support and was adopted by the House.

After the vote that took place on March 8, I think, one could have hoped for a follow-up on these commitments in the budget, on March 22, especially through a cap on stock options for corporate CEOs. It would have been a good way, through this bill, to combat tax evasion and make sure that each and everyone pays their fair share. Nevertheless, it was completely excluded from the bill, and I was very disappointed when I first read Bill C-44. It is a missed opportunity to do more on that front.

While the government refuses to act against tax evasion in Bill C-44, it is cancelling the public transit tax credit, although this is in no way a means of tax evasion. A total of $250 million went back to the 1.5 million Canadian taxpayers who benefited from the public transit tax credit. Public transit users kept their receipts and, at the end of the year, applied to the government for a refund of part of their transit costs. Although Canadian public transit users—and therefore not the wealthiest—were getting back 250 million dollars, they were told that, since the tax credit was not important, not meaningful, and dit not meet its objectives, it had to be cancelled. On the other hand, tax loopholes for corporate CEOs are being kept. I saw that as completely nonsensical.

I have not even mentioned the increase in numerous fees and taxes contained in the bill. Because I will run out of time, I will mention only the increase in excise duties. I know my colleagues talked about it earlier today, but I want to point out that witnesses all agreed that the increase in excise duties is simply excessive.

Not only are they unfairly increasing them in the budget, but what is more, they will increase each year based on the consumer price index indefinitely. This was condemned by industry stakeholders who obviously see that as a danger for their industry. This is understandable, because it will never stop. Raising excise duties means higher costs for microbreweries, microdistilleries, and vintners of all sizes.

This is certainly something that should be removed from the bill, and the Liberal members will soon have a chance to do so, when we vote later on amendments, at the report stage. I encourage them to remove this aspect from the bill.

I am also asking them to remove another aspect of the bill that has gone somewhat unnoticed, but was also raised in committee, which is the elimination of the exemption for insurers of farming and fishing property. They were eligible for a tax exemption for good reasons, because in the past, farming and fishing businesses had trouble getting their property insured. That is why mutual insurance companies were created. These companies were entitled to an exemption if they kept a certain number of policyholders, who were fishers and farmers.

However, once again, the government is saying that this tax exemption is not significant and absolutely needs to go. However, I will point out that this bill leaves CEOs' stock options untouched.

This is in addition to the changes concerning the parliamentary budget officer, whom I had the chance to talk about a little earlier. We have to admit that the government completely missed the mark on this one. People came to committee to testify about it. There was the current parliamentary budget officer, the previous parliamentary budget officer, Mr. Page, and other subject matter experts. They all condemned the amateurish approach of the government, which introduced woefully inadequate amendments regarding the parliamentary budget officer.

Thank goodness the Liberals saw the light and passed a few amendments even though they rejected all of the opposition's amendments, as usual. At least they admitted to a bad job. The public servants who testified before us had a hard time defending the bill and justifying why they did not consult anyone before introducing it, not even the current or former parliamentary budget officer. It was very clear that they did not consult anyone before moving the amendments and that they had to pick up the pieces in committee. What a fine example of Liberal amateurism. What came to us in committee was a fait accompli, a poorly thought-out and poorly written bill condemned by those it affected most. In this case, that was the parliamentary budget officer.

The other subject that captured the committee's attention was the infrastructure bank. I know that several of my colleagues mentioned this in their speeches, but the infrastructure bank and its mission are ill-conceived. We are talking about revenue-generating infrastructure. The Liberals never mentioned this before. I asked a departmental official what it meant, and he clearly said that it meant tolls and user fees. How else is infrastructure supposed to make a profit? We are going to see tolls popping up all across Canada.

In committee, I moved a motion to include wording about the infrastructure bank from the Liberal Party platform in the budget implementation bill, but my motion was rejected. The Liberals did not approve their very own words about the infrastructure bank's mission. This is clear evidence that the Liberals cannot keep their promises to Canadians. The infrastructure bank is a good example of that because the only people who are going to benefit are the Liberals' friends.

Since my time has expired, I will be very glad to answer questions from my colleagues on anything which might be of interest to them in Bill C-44.

9:30 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like to have more details about the infrastructure bank. The way the bill is set up now, the bank will be making investments as an agent of the federal government. Therefore, the laws and regulations of Quebec and the provinces will not apply.

According to my colleague, should this provision be excluded from the bill?

9:30 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague for his comments and his work on the finance committee, where he raised that point.

I was very proud to support his amendments in committee. I will again be very proud to support them here to try to fix the bill to the extent possible, so that the infrastructure bank is not as bad as it is now, although it will remain imperfect.

That being said, the fact that the bank will act as an agent of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada is a blatant problem pointed out by various stakeholders, including by my colleague from Joliette. That calls into question the ability of provincial and municipal governments to have a say in such projects and to simply enforce their legislation, be it on environmental matters or other areas under their jurisdiction.

As proposed, the infrastructure bank is a crown corporation, and therefore it will be acting as an agent of Her Majesty. It may be a problem if the bank chooses to use all the authorities granted to it as an agent of Her Majesty. This is dangerous. To avoid any confusion and risk, it would be appropriate and reasonable to remove that provision from the bill. The bank would not be perfect, but it would not be as bad as it is now.

9:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the dollars, especially the $20 billion the infrastructure bank will set aside to underwrite loans and reduce the risk to investors while charging taxpayers, whether through tolls and fees, to pay for its return on its investment. How does he feel about using taxpayer dollars to underwrite those loans, and what could we better use that for in terms of infrastructure?

9:30 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I could not say it better than one of her colleagues did earlier: profits are privatized while risks are nationalized. Of course, in this case, it is a way to reassure investors who demand returns of 7% to 9%. My colleague says that returns sometimes reach 20% for the most profitable projects.

In some cases, the federal government will give loan guarantees. I assume that it will be for the riskier projects for which Canadians have the most to lose. The public will be on the hook for those projects that are not profitable, so that the private investors do not lose any money. Canadians will have to cover the losses for projects that are not profitable. On the other hand, when there is profit, 100% of it will go to the private sector, and that is unfortunate.

We think that this is absolutely unfair. The bank should not have been set up this way. It simply should not have been set up, period, because it is not what the Liberals promised Canadians during the campaign. That is another broken promise by the Liberals. Each passing day brings its share of new broken promises. I hope it will stop at some point.

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be back in the House, speaking to such important issues.

We have been talking a lot about the infrastructure bank. I just want to add to that conversation. I know we have people who know much more about it than I, but I want to read an excerpt from the Canadian Press today. The title of this is “Infrastructure bank may bear large portion of risk in projects”. The article states, “The man advising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on building a new infrastructure financing agency was told the body could take—

9:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order, please. I want to remind the member that she is not allowed to mention a member's name or the Prime Minister's name.

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

I apologize, Madam Speaker. That was my error.

The article states that:

The man advising [the Prime Minister] on building a new infrastructure financing agency was told the body could take on a “significant” amount of risk to help projects come to fruition.

The agency would “help bear a significant portion of the risk” in a project if the government took on an equity stake to make a project more attractive to private investors, says a confidential briefing package prepared for special adviser Jim Leech.

The Feb. 20 briefing document says the bank could take on debt that allows other debtors to be paid first in order to provide a “loss buffer” to the private sector, or invest on an equal footing “at concessionary terms.”

That latter reference could mean giving a private partner exclusive rights to use and receive revenue from a piece of infrastructure, like a rail line—such as the arrangement between the U.K., France and the private companies involved in the Channel Tunnel.

With reference to the infrastructure bank, we have asked time and time again in the House of Commons if there will be risk to the government and to the private sector. All the opposition side, whether the official opposition or members of the NDP, has heard is that the only person on the hook for this will be the taxpayer. The only way we were going to get this type of information was through an access to information request, and it was requested by the Canadian Press. The government has backgrounders on information and it is not willing to share because it is against its mandate and agenda. We see that with the carbon tax and the infrastructure bank. We are asking for some transparency on behalf of taxpayers. Somebody needs to be the voice of the taxpayers.

By no means am I an economist. I like to look at things as simply as possible. I am looking at information from the Fraser Institute, which noted that in 2016-17 the combined debt of the federal and provincial governments will be $1.4 trillion. I know we have talked a lot about this. People have said that deficits do not matter. We have heard that over and over again. However, when the government continues to spend greater than the revenues received, it will matter. It will have an impact on those things that are vital and important to Canadians, our top priorities.

If we know we are spending billions of dollars, a lot of which is money that we have borrowed, imagine when we have to start paying interest on that, money that could benefit Canadian society. I believe the cost would be over $37,000 per person if we were to divide the debt among everybody. That is more than the cost of my new car. That means everybody would be able to buy a brand new car as of today. I want to put that into perspective, because most families are buying a used car or cannot afford a car at all.

The government is spending all of this money. If we are looking at $62.8 billion just in interest in 2015-16, let us put that into what really matters. The member who sits beside me could buy the Toronto Maple Leafs 62 times over. Everybody knows how wealthy the Toronto Maple Leafs team is. Our debt is 62 times the worth of the Toronto Maple Leafs. We could buy 315 F-35 fighter jets. Would that not be wonderful for our troops? Instead, we have to worry about a debt that will continue on.

I look at the effects this will have on our generations. We talk about the debt, but we really do not understand the effects of that debt. What will that mean to the future of our health care system or our our educational system? How will that affect the environment, something so important to the government? How will that affect the government if we spend all of the money today? Later on we will be unable to afford anything. It concerns me because as we move forward with the great plans of the government, all we see is debt. We have already discussed that the debt we are accumulating is all on borrowed money. Who is going to pay this debt back? Debt and deficit do not seem to be key words for the government, but for most families it is.

As the critic for family, children, and social development, what would happen if we budgeted that way in our own homes? We would lose our cars, houses, and everything we ever owned. We cannot max it out time and time again. This is what the government is doing.

A lot of times when we have this conversation, the government of the day will reflect back to the spending of the previous government when we went through a global economic downturn. There was one in 2008, 2009, and 2010. We were the first country to recover, and we did so very well. I would like to thank the late Minister Flaherty for doing such a phenomenal job in the work that was done in Canada. Out of that spending, there were new arenas, new roads, new facilities for our communities, and a lot of growth in the economy as we went forward.

Now we are spending for the sake of spending and it does not make sense. We are not in a global recession when we need to go up against huge debt. I do not know why the government is putting our future in debt time and time again. The next generation will pay for this. When we look at medical care, such as palliative care, as Bill C-277 put through, why are we not investing in things that are really important to Canadians? Why are we not investing in long-term plans? We are spending so much money. I could talk about the $130,000 spent by the Prime Minister to travel abroad. Something as simple as that reflects respect for Canadian taxpayer dollars, and we do not see that.

I will bring this back in layman's terms. A lot of times when we talk to Canadians, we often talk about such big numbers, and they cannot grasp it. We are talking about miles and miles of money. If we laid it down, how much would it look like? A lot of times Canadians cannot put it into perspective because it is so grandiose. We want to do a lot of things in Canada and I am really fearful of where this ongoing debt and bad plans, such as the infrastructure bank and all of the other things that are planned, are going to put our country. It is going to put our grandchildren far behind the eight ball. What is going to happen to their education and health care? These are so important that we have to step back and ask ourselves how we can do it better. We are spending and spending and there is no plan to get back to a balanced budget.

Again and again, the opposition side has asked the government for its plan to get back to a balanced budget. Unfortunately, I do not think any member on the government side has actually said there is a plan. All we are hearing is 2035, 2055, or whenever it may be, but it will not be in two or three years, as it should be. When the government was elected, you said there would be a $10 billion deficit and I am not sure why you, time and time again—

9:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I first want to remind the member that she is to address her comments to the Chair and not directly to the government or individual members.

It being 9:44 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

9:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

9:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

9:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

9:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those opposed will please say nay.

9:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

9:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

9:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

9:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

9:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

9:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those opposed will please say nay.

9:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

9:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 6.

The next question is on Motion No. 5.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

9:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

9:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

9:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

9:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those opposed will please say nay.