Debates of June 8th, 2017

Opposition Motion--Nuclear Disarmament

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time, if there is any left, with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Yesterday, I listened to Setsuko Thurlow, a Hiroshima survivor, speak eloquently of what it was like to have her family, her neighbourhood, and her city vaporized in an instant of mass destruction. I wish everyone in the House could have heard her very moving words.

Setsuko has devoted her life to advocating for nuclear disarmament to ensure that her experience will never be repeated. She also reminded us of Canada's role in the bomb that destroyed her city. The uranium was mined at Great Bear Lake and refined at Port Hope, Ontario.

When I was young, the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively recent reminders of the horrors of nuclear warfare. In the climate of fear in the depths of the Cold War, people worked hard for nuclear disarmament and hoped against hope that this could never happen again. Ironically, 60 years after Hiroshima, we are closer now to nuclear warfare than we were when I was growing up in the late 1950s and 1960s.

Like many kids in that era, I grew up with school air raid drills that taught us what to do if an atomic bomb was dropped on our town. Penticton, British Columbia had a population of 10,000 at that time. I am not sure why we thought we were a target, but like schools across Canada, North America, and likely much of the world, our town had an air raid siren and practised our air raid drills. There was, I admit, a U.S. air force base not too far south of us. I remember that feeling of vague dread whenever I saw a B-52 flying overhead en route to airspace over northern Canada and Alaska. There were B-52s overheard every day, every one of them laden with nuclear warheads.

Some would say that it was that threat of mutually assured destruction that kept worldwide conflict at bay through the Cold War, but the risk to the planet was, and remains,incalculable. We came so close to nuclear disaster many times, not just during the Cuban missile crisis but other events brought on by sheer accident, human error, and human folly.

Therefore, we would think that the world would have come to its senses over the past 60 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, even now, 25 years after the end of the Cold War, there are more than 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world.

Canadians have long recognized the threat of nuclear proliferation and have long called for nuclear disarmament. In 2010, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion that called on the government to, among other things, address the progress of and an opportunity for nuclear disarmament; endorse the 2008 plan for nuclear disarmament of Ban Ki-moon, then Secretary General of the United Nations; and deploy a major diplomatic initiative to increase the rate of nuclear disarmament. The Liberal Party of Canada just last year adopted a resolution at its Winnipeg policy convention that urged its Liberal government to comply more fully, both with its international treaty obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and play a proactive role in achieving a nuclear weapons free world and emulate the Ottawa process, which led to the banning of landmines, by convening an international conference to commence negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention that would ban nuclear weapons. However, the government's actions in the past year go completely against that resolution.

I would like to back up and talk briefly about the Ottawa process, in which Canada truly led the world to a ban on landmines. This was Canada at its best on the world stage. It was difficult work, but it was the right thing to do. I am proud Canada did the heavy lifting. It was done without the main players on the stage. The United States was not there, yet we went ahead because it was the right thing to do. We need to do the same thing with nuclear disarmament.

The international community, involving over 130 countries, is currently carrying out negotiations on the convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, just as the Liberal Party resolution asked for. The problem is that not only is Canada not leading this process, but it is boycotting it completely. Canada is not back on the international scene. It is backing away from its traditional leadership role in promoting a more peaceful world and backing away under pressure from the United States and other nuclear powers.

It is ironic that we are debating this point only two days after the government proudly rolled out a shiny new foreign policy that tried to paint Canada as taking a path independent from the United States, when in this process we are meekly following the Trump administration.

The Netherlands is the only NATO country standing up for sanity and taking a strong role in the negotiations. These negotiations for nuclear disarmament are still going on at the United Nations, and Canada could join the process and take a real role in this important and essential project.

Instead, the government hides behind its actions on the fissile material cut-off treaty. If successful, this effort would stop the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, the basic elements of nuclear weapons. While this is a laudable goal, it will do absolutely nothing to bring about nuclear disarmament. It is not nuclear disarmament at all.

As I said at the start, there are more than 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world, and the nuclear powers have huge stockpiles of fissile materials. They do not need any more plutonium or highly enriched uranium to keep building, for years to come, more weapons that could incinerate the world several times over. The fissile material cut-off treaty will not stop that.

Canada is in a unique position to be a leader in nuclear disarmament. I want to point out that my riding has a long history of peace activism focused by the strong Doukhobor community with its dedication to peace and toil, and the Mir Centre for Peace at Selkirk College in Castlegar.

My predecessor in this place, Alex Atamenenko, tabled a motion asking the government to create a department of peace, and I have tabled that same motion here in this Parliament. This would create a minister responsible for promoting the non-violent resolution of conflicts at home and abroad. It would speak volumes to the high priority that Canadians place on a peaceful world.

Opponents to negotiating a nuclear ban treaty say that disarmament must happen step by step and that the time is not right for these negotiations. The world is not secure enough for the treaty. We have reached the edge of this cliff step by step over the last 60 years. The world will never be fully secure. We cannot wait for better conditions. We cannot afford to wait at all.

Yes, the nuclear powers will always oppose nuclear disarmament, but we must not bow to their wishes and blindly take their viewpoint. We need to radically change the world view of the nuclear powers. It will not be easy and it will not happen overnight, but we must be bold, live up to our convictions and our moral duty, and work tirelessly for a nuclear weapons free world.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, I find myself stuck between the fissile motion of the NDP and the facile position of the Conservatives. The last time the Conservatives ran a fighter procurement program, we largely lost our aviation industry, which took a long time to recover and we ended up with the Bomarc missile, which made us a temporary and not very effective nuclear power. I find it very consistent with the position we are hearing today, that nuclear weapons are essential for world peace, which is a position I do not necessarily agree with.

I am wondering what my colleague in the NDP thinks of that position and if he thinks the obvious logical conclusion we are hearing from the Conservatives is that, if every country had nuclear weapons, there would be world peace.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit it is one of the statements from the Liberals that I can almost agree with today. I have heard all day both from the Liberals and the Conservatives how we cannot start nuclear disarmament treaty negotiations because there are more and more nuclear weapons in the world every day, and more and more countries have them. We cannot start a negotiation under that situation. If we do not start it under that situation, when are we going to start it? It is not going to happen on its own.

We are not going to have the nuclear powers at the table perhaps at the start, but we can talk among the countries in the world that are concerned. There are 130 of them talking right now. We could join them and help lead that and start a process that would work toward nuclear disarmament. I do not think the world is a safer place when there are more nuclear weapons. We have 15,000 of them now, so let us get back to the table and start working toward a nuclear free world.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all agree that perhaps one of the most frightening threats that we have in the world is the proliferation of weapons technology, of delivery systems, and of fissile material, particularly to rogue states.

Would the member care to comment on what the government is doing, or what it ought to be doing, to assist in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should be working toward reducing nuclear proliferation as well as working toward nuclear disarmament. They are two somewhat different things. We do not have to stop one to do the other.

The government has been talking about its fissile treaty that it is leading. That is a laudable action, but it is not the same as nuclear disarmament. The world's nuclear powers are at the table probably because they would love to stop the production of fissile material because they have enough for years to come, and they want to be the only kids on the block with that.

They are two different things and both are laudable, but one is much more important, and that is the work toward world disarmament.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate the member for Calgary Shepard described what Ronald Reagan had done as though he was happy with incremental work to remove nuclear weapons from the world.

I had the honour of working with Mikhail Gorbachev. He related a personal story to me of the moment he got frustrated with the pace of negotiations. He picked up the phone and told his staff, “I want to call the president of the United States.” Ronald Reagan personally took his call. Mikhail Gorbachev asked him, “Mr. President, do you want to get rid of nuclear weapons? I do.” Ronald Reagan replied, “Yes, I do.” Gorbachev said, “I'm afraid all our negotiators are going to do is drink vodka forever and just talk, but we need to do this.” They intended to do it.

The world's political leadership have dropped the ball. It is time for us to pick it up.

The speech given by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay said what I am about to ask him, but I would like him to reiterate. Why on earth is Canada not at the table with nations like the Netherlands, a NATO ally, working to raise the political momentum towards getting rid of nuclear weapons?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for that comment, because I totally agree. We cannot get anywhere if we are not talking. The Prime Minister said the other day that he thinks these negotiations are “useless”. They are becoming more useless to Canada because we are being written off the world stage as a real player in negotiations around the diplomacy of getting rid of these weapons.

Canada has to be at the talks. We have to be working. We have to lead as much as we can. The major players will come to the table when they see the rest of the world working on this. They are all human beings, as we are. As the member said, they probably want to get rid of these weapons as well. We have to create that space, the climate to make that happen.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no more stark illustration, I think, of the folly of humankind than the fact that we have created and housed here on earth an arsenal capable of destroying the planet many times over. I do think that, if we want to safeguard the future of the planet, we need to get smart and start working toward disarming ourselves when it comes to our nuclear arsenal, and Canada should be a leader in that effort. Canada has been a leader in that effort in the past. In fact, the Liberal Party of Canada has been a leader on that file in the past. It is disappointing to see a government say it is bringing back traditional Canadian foreign policy but leave out a really vital component of Canadian foreign policy, which is to work toward nuclear disarmament.

The only other threat to the planet on that scale that we see right now is climate change. However, climate change does not have the same kind of stark and immediate catastrophic consequences that we would have if we were to deploy the world's nuclear arsenal.

Canada should be at the table. We have heard a lot in the House today, and we heard yesterday what I thought was a genuinely shocking comment from the Prime Minister that Canada going out in the world, providing leadership, and trying to rally people around the cause of nuclear disarmament was useless. I was frankly shocked that was the word he would use to describe a kind of diplomacy that Canadian governments, Liberal governments, of the past have used, whether it was on the international landmines treaty or the International Criminal Court. All great diplomatic efforts start with some kind of opposition.

Yes, it is a challenge that the major players, when it comes to our nuclear arsenal, are not at the table. However, that does not mean it is useless or meaningless to rally other countries around the world to tell those holders of nuclear arsenals that we want a world where we do not live under the threat of a nuclear holocaust.

Presumably, when the Liberals say they are proud of pursuing their fissile material cut-off treaty and they try to make it seem as if somehow we could not do that in tandem with pursuing a nuclear disarmament treaty, it is because someone is telling them that they will not get the one if they support the other. Presumably, it is the United States telling them that, if they want to make progress on the one, they cannot on the other. That, to me, says that Canada's position does matter, because the United States would not care to try to get us off the scent of pursuing a nuclear disarmament treaty unless it thought that Canada's leadership mattered. That is proof positive, I think, that the Liberals are failing Canadians who want to see a nuclear free world, and they are failing the planet.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 30, 2017, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.

Further, pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Monday, June 12, 2017, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

Excise Tax Act

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

moved that Bill C-342, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (carbon levy), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a great honour to have the privilege to introduce a private member's bill.

One of the first things that happens in Parliament is that we elect our Speaker. The second thing is that every member's name is drawn from a hat. I was given the great privilege of being number 70 drawn out, and here we are, almost two years into this Parliament, and my turn came up to introduce a bill.

There is a lot of thought that goes into what the important issue is that needs to be addressed in a private member's bill. In the last Parliament, I was very happy that I was able to introduce the “safe at home” bill, which required a safe distance between a victim of sexual assault and the offender. During the warrant period of sentencing, there has to be a separation to protect both physical and psychological health. This passed, which made me very happy. However, here we are in the current Parliament and I am again honoured to have a private member's bill. What should it be? I truly wanted to represent the community that I love, Langley—Aldergrove, which is one of the most beautiful parts of Canada and the world.

One day, I was checking out my energy heating bill. I am quite excited that the Conservative position always has been and in reality is the only party to stand up for the Canadian taxpayer. Traditionally, both the Liberals and the NDP have supported tax increases whenever possible. I hope that is not the case now, but one expects an action based on past performance, so I would expect the Liberals to support more and more taxes.

Canadians, as the Prime Minister has said, are willing to pay their fair share. Canadians are very fair. However, when I looked at my energy heating bill for heating my home, and I live in Langley, British Columbia, there is the carbon tax. There is a line that shows the cost of the natural gas, then other charges, the carbon tax, and two lines below that there is the GST. Suddenly, I realized that the government is collecting a tax on a tax.

There are diverse opinions on whether or not we should have a carbon tax. The government is supporting the greenhouse reduction targets, which are part of the targets of the Paris accord, and it is one of the reasons why this side supported it. Those were our targets and the Liberal government has used those targets in the Paris accord, but how do we achieve those targets? Some would like to see energy efficiency through regulation.

My colleague for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa has a long successful history in protecting the environment. I want to thank him for the great work that he has done. I have been honoured to work with him on the environment committee. However, he is a Conservative member of Parliament who does not believe that the government should be taking every opportunity to tax Canadians. Here is an example of where the Liberals have that right to come up with their policies, and they are going to put a price on carbon. This is how the Liberals believe they can reach those targets. We do not believe that will be successful, but that is their right and that is their policy.

However, when the Prime Minister announced putting a price on carbon, he said, for that price on carbon, it would be up to the provinces as to what they would do with those revenues. The Prime Minister promised Canadians that it would be federally revenue neutral. Yes, each province would determine how they would collect that price on carbon, but federally it would have zero effect on the revenues to the federal government. This was a promise. There are a lot of promises and a lot of statements made by the Liberal government here in the House and to Canadians. Be it in the House or out publicly at town hall meetings, there was promise after promise that it was federally revenue neutral, but that is not true.

I saw it on my bill, and I started talking to constituents, asking them to check their bills. For everyone who checked their bill, sure enough, the government was charging GST on the tax. That is a tax on a tax.

Time and time again, Canadians were shocked. They had believed the Prime Minister. They had trusted him. He had said, like Yoda trying to play the Jedi mind tricks, “High taxes, they are good for you”. Canadians were believing it until they saw the truth. What the Prime Minister was saying was from the dark side. It was not the truth. The truth is now being revealed, and Canadians are realizing they have been deceived.

We also called on the Library of Parliament and asked it to do a study and tell us if this is just a little money, because the Prime Minister has continually said this is a small cost and that we would go into a deficit of $10 billion, that it is just a little to build a strong Canada. We did the research with the Library of Parliament, and we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars coming out of B.C. and Alberta every year. As the price of carbon goes up, so does the GST.

There must then be evidence in the budget the Liberals introduced that there are additional revenues on that line for GST. There it was. The Library of Parliament indicated hundreds of millions of tax dollars coming out of Canadians' pockets.

The Liberals believe in high taxation and lots of social programs, but as a Conservative, we are the only party in the House representing the Canadian taxpayer and saying we trust that money in the pockets and in the bank accounts of Canadians. They will use their money wisely. The Liberals on the other hand say taxes are good, this is fair, and it will be revenue neutral. That is all not true. We know from the report from the Library of Parliament it is not true, and we also now see it in their budget. There it is. It is a little hidden, but if we dig, there it is. There is a massive increase in revenues for the federal government. It is not revenue neutral.

What do we do? Being good Conservatives, representing Canadian taxpayers and low taxes, we told the truth and presented that document from the Library of Parliament in the House and asked for unanimous consent that it be tabled. Sadly, we did not receive unanimous consent. The Liberal Party did not want that made public. However, it is a public document, so we released it to the media and the Canadian media put it out there. Canadians can now see it by looking at their energy bill.

How is this going to affect Canadians? As I said, the report indicates hundreds of millions of dollars being taken out of Alberta and British Columbia. As the price of carbon expands across the country, we are talking about billions of dollars.

If we think back to the party that represented the Canadian taxpayer. The Conservative Party of Canada, in 2006, promised we were going to lower the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We all remember that. One of the things I really respect, and a reason I am so pleased to be a Conservative, is that Conservatives keep their promises. If they say they are going to lower the GST down to 5%, it will happen.

A lot of times, our promises are delivered even before Canadians expect it. That is what happened. We could see the economic clouds on the horizon, and instead of lowering it from 7% to 6% to 5% over a gradual phase, it was done almost overnight from 7% down to 5%. Why the GST? The Conservative government provided the lowest taxation in Canadian history, whether it was income tax or lowering taxes for corporations and small business.

That was one of the promises that was made by this party, that if we had formed government, we would have lowered small business taxes. The Liberal Party made the same promise, and of course that is another broken promise. The Liberals have refused to lower taxes.

What is the advantage of low taxes to small business? It helps businesses create jobs. We are competing provincially and locally, but also internationally. For Canada to remain competitive and for small businesses to able to expand their distribution and create jobs, lowering taxes creates a much healthier economy. However, the Liberal government made that promise, and it is another broken promise.

The former Conservative government lowered the GST. It is the tax, the one tax that affects everyone, and it benefited those living on fixed incomes and in poverty more than any other tax, but particularly those on fixed incomes who have difficulties in choosing between buying medicine, heating their homes, what they are going to have for supper, or how they are going to get around. We provided a bus credit, so that transit costs would be lower. Unfortunately, that is another thing that the Liberal government took away from our Canadian seniors.

The Liberals are deceptively moving the GST from 5% to 7% and higher. As the price of carbon goes up so does the GST. Again, billions of dollars are deceptively being taken out of Canadian taxpayers' pockets.

I have not yet met one Canadian in my riding who thinks it is fair to charge a tax on a tax. Canadians, as the Prime Minister has said, are fair. However, it is not fair to quietly, deceptively charge a tax on a tax. A goods and services tax, GST, is a tax on goods and services. Is a tax a good? No. Is it services? No. It is a tax. Maybe the government, if it is going to continue on taxing taxes, needs to rename what it is doing.

What are Canadians saying? As I said, none of my constituents think it is fair. I have not met one Canadian yet who thinks it is fair to charge a tax on a tax, in principle, except for some of my Liberal colleagues, and unfortunately, some of the other colleagues in the House. I do not want to prejudge what they are going to do, but it is fundamentally unfair.

What Bill C-342 does is, and it is very simple, it makes an amendment to the Excise Tax Act of Canada so that the price of carbon is GST exempt. There are a number of items under the GST legislation, the excise tax legislation, that are exempt. One of those should be tax. A government should not charge a tax on tax, especially when it promised that it would be revenue neutral.

It is only a Liberal government, supported by members of Parliament who think it is okay to charge tax on tax, that would oppose this. I hope I am wrong. I am prejudging from what I have heard. I am thinking of all the times the Liberals have said that providing marijuana to our children will be good for them. They have said that it is revenue neutral and higher taxes are good for us.

It is like Jedi mind control. I am thinking of a quote from Yoda, “Powerful you have become...the dark side I sense in you.” I sense that high taxes and deception are coming from the dark side.

I am proud to stand up in a party that believes in low taxes and standing up for the Canadian taxpayer. I encourage everyone to support this very important bill. Let us make the change. Let us be fair to Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his investment in this particular initiative, and for taking the time and thought to put this forward.

However, I do want to draw to the House's attention a couple of the comments he made. The member did talk about the lowering of GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, and yes, that did happen, but what you indirectly did at the time, when you were the government, is that you stopped funding and assisting municipalities. You did. I was the mayor of Kingston at the time, and we received a lot less money for very important projects during that time.

What that did is that forced municipalities to increase their taxes. Indirectly, you did not really help the situation; you just made it worse.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member should be addressing his comments to the Chair.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I did note that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was speaking in the second person mode, and it is for that reason that we ask members to speak in the third person and direct their comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely correct, and I thank my colleague for pointing that out.

At the end of the day, municipalities ended up paying citizens through a tax that is not based on one's income, a non-progressive tax, and ended up paying more. The property taxes of seniors who lived in houses increased, and it ended up costing more for municipalities to provide those basic needs. The whole point to the price on carbon is to set a price to drive industry to find new ways to lower carbon emissions. Would it not lend to that argument that if the price of carbon was lowered, the GST portion would also be lowered? In other words, if there were no price on carbon, there would be no GST.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is missing the point. The point is it is fundamentally unfair to charge a tax on a tax. The member is trying to rewrite history. I was also a member of council for 14 years before coming here for 13 years federally. It was the Chrétien Liberal government during that time, with Paul Martin as finance minister. Traditionally, it is one-third, one-third, one-third. For all of the infrastructure work, it is one-third, one-third, one-third. That all disappeared under the Chrétien Liberal government, with Paul Martin as finance minister. That is when it all changed and became extremely difficult, but it was under the former Stephen Harper Conservative government that there was a balanced budget and the largest infrastructure investment in municipalities in Canadian history. All of the improvements to Canadian infrastructure were made fairly, across every municipality, and not just favourite Liberal municipalities.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his bill currently before the House. I do not doubt his intentions, but I am particularly concerned about the inequity this may cause among consumers in Canada's various regions.

Whenever my colleague has spoken, he has talked mainly about Alberta and British Columbia. I understand why he has considered only those two provinces, since this bill will not apply in those provinces that have carbon exchanges. That is why I am concerned about consumer fairness.

What does the member think about the fact that consumers in Quebec will not be treated the same way as consumers in British Columbia under this proposal? Can he address the question with a view to the fact that carbon pricing systems may vary from one province to another?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to deal with that is to send Bill C-342 to committee to make sure it can be applied fairly so that all provinces benefit equally. The only way that can be ensured is if it goes to committee and is studied and, if necessary, amended. I am open to amendments. It is up to each province, including Quebec and British Columbia. Each province can determine how it puts the price on carbon.

My bill is to ensure, in the spirit of fairness, that Canadians are not paying tax on a tax. I hope the member will not oppose fairness and will support a low-tax scheme for Canadians. The people it will help the most are those on fixed incomes. A lot of Canadians can afford to pay taxes, but a lot of Canadians are really struggling. He knows that, and I am hoping the Liberals will support this bill going to committee.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the bill proposed by the member for Langley—Aldergrove.

Bill C-342 proposes to amend the Excise Tax Act to provide that any tax on carbon pollution that is imposed by a province be excluded from the total purchase price, and consequently that it excluded from the calculation of the goods and services tax or the harmonized sales tax, the GST/HST.

Although the hon. member has good intentions, the bill presented would unnecessarily complicate our tax system without providing any significant benefits for taxpayers.

The Government of Canada wants our tax system to be as fair and as effective as possible. If we want strong and sustainable economic growth that benefits Canadians as a whole, we must have in place a tax system that is fair for everyone, especially for the middle class, which is central to our economy.

Before taking time to explain the steps and measures that the government has taken in this regard, I would like to explore the consequences of Bill C-342 as proposed by the member.

The GST and HST have always been intended as a tax on consumption. Applying that tax to a broad range of goods and services not only makes it equitable, but also gives it the additional advantage of being simpler to manage and more effective, which is undeniably of benefit to Canadian businesses and consumers.

This is how the GST and HST work: they are calculated on the final sale price of numerous goods and services that Canadians consume or use every day. I am sure that as consumers we are all subject to the tax. That final amount, to which the GST is applied, includes the other taxes, expenses and levies that may have been incorporated into the final price, such as customs duties, the tobacco tax, and other gasoline taxes.

The main advantage of this long-standing general approach is that it is simple and predictable, and that is good for Canadian consumers. It also means that it is easy to calculate for companies that do business in Canada and that it is easy for them to comply with it.

This bill would eliminate those advantages, but without offering any clear benefits in exchange.

The government believes that changes to tax laws are ideally considered to be part of the budget process, to ensure that they are consistent with the financial framework and the general uniformity of the tax system.

Making the tax system fairer and more effective is certainly an important objective of the current government. That is why, last year, we launched a broad review of tax expenditures. The objective of that review is to eliminate tax measures that are poorly targeted or ineffective. The review will also enable the government to identify cases where it would be possible to eliminate measures that unfairly benefit the wealthiest Canadians.

Budget 2017 brings in the first measures intended to implement the changes that came out of the review of tax expenditures conducted by the government. That review identified opportunities for making existing tax measures more effective, fairer, and more accessible to Canadians.

In this regard, budget 2017 provided for measures to improve the tax relief offered to family caregivers, students, and persons with disabilities. Tax fairness is a complex objective that calls for ongoing engagement on several fronts. As the government’s work in this area progresses, it will continue to aim for a fair tax system that benefits the middle class and those who are working hard to join it.

As our Minister of Environment and Climate Change has stated clearly before, pollution is not free. A successful climate change strategy puts a price on pollution, enabling Canadians to make choices about their consumption habits to ensure these choices do not come at the expense of our environment. Separating the carbon tax from the total purchase price would instantly make tax compliance more complicated.

A central component of the government's pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change is the increase of nearly $2,300 in tax-free child benefits this year. We have also taken steps outside the area of taxation to help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money and plan for the future.

A year ago, the government acted to help people retire with dignity by strengthening the Canada pension plan, reaching a historic agreement with the provinces that will increase the maximum benefit by about 50% over time.

These are real, significant actions that decisively and definitely impact the lives of Canadians.

Add to that the government's historic investment through our previous two budgets and last year's fall economic statement. These investments will help communities become cleaner and less reliant on sources of energy that pollute the air, harm the environment, and compromise our health and the future of our children.

We continue to work toward executing a single, cohesive, and comprehensive plan to improve the lives of middle-class Canadians, a plan that will achieve more than an ad hoc approach like the one proposed in this bill. Commitment to pricing carbon pollution across the country by 2018, which is in line with the federal benchmark, is based on a very basic principle of fairness: people or their proxy must pay for what they use.

When it comes to implementation, provinces that have not already done so have two broad choices. The first is an explicit price-based system. It might be a carbon tax like the one in British Columbia or a hybrid approach composed of a carbon levy and an output-based pricing system, such as the one that is in place in Alberta today. The other possibility is a cap and trade system such as the one here in Ontario and in Quebec.

The final reason the bill falls short of its intent simply comes down to dollars and cents. When we take a closer look at the savings this proposed legislation might achieve, we find that the impact of removing GST/HST on carbon taxes or levies would be relatively negligible for most fuels and would have little impact on purchasers.

For example, removing the 5% GST on the current 6.67¢ per litre carbon tax on gasoline sold in British Columbia would reduce the price per litre of gasoline by about three-tenths of a cent. On a 50-litre fill-up, the amount of relief would be only 15¢. In Alberta, removing the 5% GST on the estimated cost of $205 for the carbon levy on natural gas in 2018 for a couple with two children would result in savings of about 85¢ per month, or $10.25 in that year.

Let us contrast that with the meaningful tax cut that the government introduced shortly after taking office in 2015. Through the middle-class tax cut, nearly nine million Canadians saw a drop in their personal income taxes. Single individuals who benefit are saving an average of $330 each year, and couples who benefit are saving an average of $540 each year.

With the introduction of the Canada child benefit plan, which has been in effect since July 2016, nine out of 10 Canadian families with children will receive an average tax cut that is extremely significant.

The bill before us today proposes a tax treatment that is inefficient and fails to support our environmental objectives and priorities. We are proposing to move forward in a clear and cohesive way in co-operation with provinces and municipalities while making sure the middle class and those trying hard to join it are properly protected through a fair and equitable tax system.

For these reasons, the government opposes this legislation.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to my colleague’s bill, Bill C-342. He is certainly well-intentioned, as he demonstrated in his speech. However, when we take a closer look at the bill’s technical details and its application across the country, not just in Alberta and British Columbia, the provinces he always mentions, there are a number of problems with it. As a parliamentarian, it troubles me to be asked to support such a bill.

I will first discuss the problems with this bill, which are why I am personally opposed to it. The fight against climate change is certainly my first priority, as a certain Liberal minister likes to say, and I hope it is also a priority for the Liberal government and all parties in the House. This issue affects my generation and future generations, so we need to take it very seriously. I am therefore happy to talk about it.

This issue relates to the bill, since it deals with carbon pricing and the polluter pays principle. There must be a price put on consuming polluting products and activities, since pollution comes with a cost. There needs to be a cost to the environmental footprint of using or buying goods and services that pollute more, so that governments can offset our pollution by investing in a greener and more environmentally friendly economy.

I wanted to demonstrate just how important this issue is to me and my party, the NDP. I am sure that I speak for my colleagues when I say that the fight against climate change is very important.

Let us talk a little more about the details of the bill now. Although it is short, consisting of only one paragraph, when we look more closely at it we see that it could be difficult to apply. Each province may decide to put a price on carbon in its own way. For example, Quebec and Ontario have created a common carbon exchange. That is one way of putting a price on carbon and pollution. On the other hand, my colleague has often spoken about Alberta and British Columbia, which have chosen another way of pricing carbon and pollution.

Under the plan announced by the federal government, by 2018 all provinces must have a method of pricing carbon and pollution. Since each province is free to choose how to do that, this bill, which proposes an exemption from the 5% goods and services tax, will have the effect of deducting the carbon tax from the GST. However, if we consider how this bill would be applied in each province, we quickly realize that it would not apply where there is a carbon exchange or some other carbon pricing or carbon levy system. We therefore cannot be sure that the member’s good intentions would materialize in those provinces.

My colleague often refers to electricity or energy bills to support his arguments and his bill. In fact, however, it would apply to much more than energy bills, if we take the example of Alberta and British Columbia. The GST is paid on a range of goods and services, not just energy. It is important to make the distinction.

My colleague said just now that applying the bill could be complicated. The example he gives regarding energy would be relatively complex. However, in other situations and for other kinds of products, it would be a complex matter to determine what portion the carbon price represented, and then exempt only that portion of the product from the 5% GST. The increased complexity involved in applying the Excise Act could cause a number of problems to its implementation in a province where someone decides to make a trade on a carbon exchange and where pollution rights may be purchased.

For example, a company may buy pollution rights and trade them. This is a cap-and-trade system. At that point, it becomes even more difficult to exempt that carbon price, when it is applied in a carbon exchange where businesses have something a little more intangible, namely a right to pollute.

However, that will not necessarily appear on consumers’ bills. Consumers may be involved in the production of a good, since we might say that part of the production is connected with pollution, and thus also connected with carbon. However, it becomes complex to administer and to truly separate out the price connected with carbon in the price of a product, and then try to exempt it from the GST.

With respect to the simplicity of our tax system, I do not think the measure makes it a lot simpler, because it is quite complicated itself.

There is also the entire question of the polluter pays principle. I am not opposed to that principle. The Conservatives want to talk about the GST on the price of carbon, but I think behind that is an effort to defeat the carbon pricing plan.

In fact, we often hear the Conservatives flatly opposing everything associated with the polluter pays principle. That is unfortunate, but it is probably what is hidden behind the intentions of the member who is proposing this measure.

When the member talks about fairness, I would like to tell him about an interesting situation that parliamentarians could consider as the debate continues, namely a way to achieve the objective.

When a carbon tax was introduced in Alberta, they also introduced a rebate system to reimburse the consumers hardest hit by it. Thanks to the NDP government of Alberta, the people with the lowest incomes have been able to obtain refunds. They receive cheques based on a rebate system connected with the carbon tax, and this makes it possible to achieve one of the objectives mentioned by my colleague. What my colleague said was that people with the lowest incomes will be the ones hardest hit by this. In Alberta, they have managed to find a good solution. I encourage my colleagues to consider that measure.

In our tax system, we already have a way of giving a rebate on the GST, and people are thus able to get reimbursed for a certain amount connected with that tax. This would be an opportunity for the federal government to examine that option in more depth, as it prepares to put a price on carbon.

We may differ on the definitions, but a price on carbon covers all forms of pricing. We could therefore consider this option for compensating low-income people, as Alberta has done. We could also give them a refund on the GST, an option that may be more generous for low-income Canadians. This would be a way of finding a compromise so that our tax system remained as simple as possible, even though it is already very complex, and at the same time achieve my colleague’s objectives, that is, not to unduly affect low-income people.

I will be very happy to hear my other colleagues' comments on this bill, and I hope to hear opinions from all sides.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Langley—Aldergrove for this important debate today. Bill C-342 would make amendments to exclude the collection of GST and HST on provincial carbon pricing systems.

I have unequivocally opposed the carbon tax since my very first words in the House of Commons on behalf of Lakeland. Since December 2015, I have questioned the carbon tax here in the House and in committees. I was the first MP to sponsor a petition against the carbon tax, with over 10,000 signatures. I fight for oil and gas workers, for small business owners, families, and for everyday Canadians, all of whom are rightfully angry and worried about their futures. This blatant tax grab is not environmental policy. It is a tax hike, a cash grab, full stop. It is all economic pain for no actual environmental gain.

Immediately, I opposed the Liberals forcing a carbon tax on all Canadians, and I oppose the Liberals' anti-energy agenda at every step. The Liberals say provinces and territories must comply by 2018, or a carbon tax will be forced on them. I oppose the Liberals' anti-energy agenda by supporting pipelines and LNG projects, all Canadian natural resources development, and Albertans.

Last year, the Prime Minister told Canadians, “All revenues generated under this system will stay in the province or territory where they are generated.” Now, Canadians know that is not at all the case.

As recently as April 2017, internal documents show the Liberals plan to collect billions in new tax dollars by taxing the carbon tax. That is a tax on a tax. This grab will result in more revenue for the Liberals, and less money for hard-working Canadians.

There is no guarantee from the Liberals at all that provinces and territories will ensure revenue neutrality. In Alberta and British Columbia, the GST collected by the Liberals on provincial carbon taxes in 2017-2018 will be $65 million from both provinces. In 2018-2019, Albertans will pay $140 million. British Columbians will pay $110 million in GST collected from the carbon taxes, all going into federal coffers.

The Liberals' claims are just not true. It is a scam. The Liberals know they are getting new revenue by taxing the carbon tax. In fact, they admit it in their own budget projections. Budget 2016 even shows a 21% increase in GST revenues between 2015 and 2021, despite the federal GST rate staying at 5%, and despite the Canadian economy projected to only grow by 15% during the same time period. There is no doubt this increase is coming directly from this tax on a tax scheme.

Canadians are rightfully worried. They are concerned about where their hard-earned tax dollars are going, and it is just the beginning. The Liberals are hiding the details from Canadians on the long-term costs, and the full economic impacts of the carbon tax.

Environment Canada says the carbon tax would have to be $300 a tonne by 2050 in order to reach emissions targets. Canada can reduce emissions, like it did for the first time in Canadian history, under the previous government, without a carbon tax. Crushing the economy is not the only solution.

The Liberals claim the tax will be revenue neutral, but it is not. Alberta's NDP claimed its carbon tax was revenue neutral simply because it was spending the proceeds on pet projects. B.C.'s carbon tax has not been neutral since 2013.

The carbon tax grab, and now the tax on the tax scheme, will punish Canadians, especially the poor and people on fixed incomes, those whose livelihoods depend on energy and agriculture, and Canadians who live in rural, remote and northern communities. It will hurt public institutions too. School boards will need to cope with millions of dollars in extra bills.

The Elk Island Catholic School board in Lakeland has to cover an additional $82,000 in increased costs for this school year, and about $143,000 in 2017-2018, for increased transportation and infrastructure costs because of the carbon tax, gutting budgets for necessities.

Municipalities will also struggle. St. Paul works to keep spending as low as possible, knowing the carbon tax will make it even harder to stay in the black in the next few years. Vegreville projected the carbon tax will hike the town costs by more than $36,000 in 2017, and up to more than $54,000 in 2018. These are significant costs for small towns, villages, counties, and MDs.

The carbon tax will hit all Canadians. A Lakeland resident near Vermilion shared a bill on Facebook recently. It showed a cost of $778 on top of a $900 bill on a single truckload of energy products to heat his home. A Bonnyville family-owned trucking business warned he will have to fire four people. The NDP carbon tax is the biggest tax hike in Alberta's history. It is a tax grab, not environmental policy. This broad-based tax on everything will not reduce emissions. Experts say carbon taxes have to be upward of $1,200 to be punitive enough to reduce emissions.

The Liberals are using international agreements with all our allies and trading partners to justify their bad tax hikes and their damaging red tape. For example, the Paris agreement does not mandate a carbon tax on countries. It does not dictate policy for members. It does not even mandate emission limits for those countries. The Liberal carbon tax will not earn so-called social licence or approval from anti-energy extremists who will never grant it.

The federal Liberals and the the provincial NDP are manipulating caring for the environment, a priority shared by all Canadians, all Albertans, and all parties. It is crass to suggest otherwise, and it is all politics to the Liberals. The Liberals are all talk, both betraying Albertans and energy workers, while breaking promises to Liberal voters who often have usually supported the Green Party and the NDP.

The Prime Minister claims provinces have a choice. However, there is no choice at all. At the beginning of the debate on the Paris agreement, before any MP had a chance to even say a word, before any provinces were consulted, he declared they must impose the carbon tax or Ottawa will do it for them. His Paris agreement motion included a carbon tax. I opposed, and still oppose, the carbon tax.

Globally, carbon taxes have led to economic disaster. Australia's carbon tax was repealed two years after it was created. What is alarming is that its policy was $24 per metric tonne Canadian. That is roughly only half of what the Liberals are forcing on Canada. About 75,000 businesses paid the carbon tax directly or paid an equivalent penalty of duties and rebates. They almost always passed on part or all of that cost to customers, small businesses, and households, because they had to, hiking prices exponentially as a result.

However, after the economic consequences of that bad policy, Australians defeated the left-leaning government and elected a conservative coalition, which repealed the tax, and created an almost $3 billion fund for industry incentives. Australia's economy is similar to Canada's. As a result of that failed policy, Australia's natural resources became less globally competitive. Canada should heed that example.

Here in Canada, British Columbia's carbon tax is often cited by proponents as ideal. It is not a theoretical debate. It has not reduced emissions. Every year, since 2010, B.C. emissions have increased. B.C.'s carbon tax was also sold as a revenue-neutral way of encouraging British Columbians to drive more fuel-efficient cars, make fewer trips, car pool, or switch to public transit. It was also applied to home heating and electricity in hopes of promoting more energy-efficient insulation and smaller homes, plus more conservation by families. That did not happen. The average Vancouverite's commute is close to 50 minutes one way, and longer than it was when the tax was imposed.

The promised gains never materialized. According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the carbon tax raises nearly $240 million a year, while the Lower Mainland's per litre transit tax raises $320 million from the Vancouver area alone. Even though Vancouver has by far the highest gasoline prices on the continent, there has been no significant reduction in gasoline purchases.

Out of necessity, British Columbians quickly adapted and returned to their old levels of fuel consumption, but with less money for essentials and the ever-rising costs of housing. This broad-based tax on everything increases the price of everything for everyone. It will rise over time, taking $38 billion away from Canadians annually by 2022.

The Liberals must be honest with Canadians. This is not about environmental stewardship. It will not earn social licence from those who are anti-energy or anti-Alberta. It is only about getting more revenue for a government that believes the budget will balance itself, that promised a so-called modest deficit, and has already racked up the largest deficit in Canadian history outside of war or recession. The Liberals started with a surplus, and two years later they are mortgaging the economic future of young Canadians. Their GST on the carbon tax is just another way for them to take even more from hard-working Canadians.

All members should support this bill. The Liberals should stop hiding the details, end this scam, and end this tax on tax.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, who is up next, know that there are only about seven and a half minutes remaining in the time for private members' business. He will have the remainder of his time when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin, but listening to the member we cannot let the facts confuse reality when reality is quite different from what has been portrayed by the insertion of the word fact. In fact, those facts the member is using are not correct. Let me shed some light on reality, so the member, or people who might be listening, will have a better idea of what we are talking about.

The member sponsored a bill and says, “We in the Conservative Party do not support cascading taxes”. That is what it is. I understand it because even in the Manitoba Legislature, the issue of cascading tax is a fairly common issue.

The sponsor of the bill talked about this, saying the government is bad because it is having a tax on the price of carbon coming from British Columbia. I have news for the Conservative members of this House. The carbon pricing in British Columbia has been happening for the last decade. In other words, Stephen Harper, the former Prime Minister, had the very same policy. I do not quite understand why it is different now, and why things have changed. Yet, the members made statements saying, “We Conservatives do not support increasing taxes”, when in fact that is what they did on this very same issue. Then the member tries to give the impression that the Liberals do not support tax breaks. The facts speak quite differently.

The fact is when this government introduced legislation to give the single largest tax break to Canada's middle class, how did the Conservatives vote? They voted against it. We are the only party that voted in favour of the tax break giving nine million-plus Canadians more cash in their pockets.

Their argument is beyond me, and how they get across trying to convince Canadians they are the greatest defenders of taxes and giving Canadians more breaks. At the end of the day, when it comes right down to a vote, what do they do? They vote against it.

Now that Stephen Harper is no longer the Prime Minister, they are saying that even though Stephen Harper did not do it, we think the Liberals should do it, because we are Conservatives. Why did Stephen Harper not do it?

Then they talk about the Paris agreement. If we want an issue that really demonstrates that the national Conservative Party is out of touch with Canadians, let us talk about the price on carbon. Countries and jurisdictions around the world went to Paris. That included parties of a Progressive Conservative nature, NDP and Liberals, parties of all stripes went to Paris. When they got back to Canada, they had an idea. Here in Canada, we worked with different provinces and territories. With the exception of one province, the province of Saskatchewan, they all agreed it was time that Canada had a price on carbon. Why? Because we were actually listening to what Canadians wanted. Even in Alberta, there was actually a price on carbon. That was the commitment that the government made.

The point is, it is only the Conservative Party in Ottawa that believes Canadians are wrong, that there is no need for us to give any attention to our environment. Let me be bold and make the suggestion that it could be that the Conservative Party, which is on that island--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I would ask hon. members to restrain their comments. We will continue with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interjection. There are so many naysayers on the other side, and that is one of the ways they justify it. Many of those members still believe that we do not have to worry about climate change, that Canada's footprint is so small, from a world perspective, that we do not have any responsibility. A vast majority of Canadians would disagree with that. Canada needs to not only do the right thing but demonstrate global leadership. Canadians expect that of the government. It seems that only the Conservatives deny climate change.

I want to highlight a couple of points. The first is the idea that a price on carbon is going to destroy the Canadian economy. The previous speaker said that it would destroy the global economy. British Columbia is one of the most progressive provinces in Canada in terms of economic growth. One would be challenged to find another province that has done as well as B.C. economically, yet it has had a price on carbon for the last decade. This fear factor the Conservatives like to espouse is just wrong. They do not want the facts to get in the way of their fearmongering.

The member said that only the Conservatives care about the province of Alberta and the oil industry. What did Stephen Harper do for the oil industry? Under his government, there was not one inch of pipeline built toward tidewater. In 18 months we not only have a process but we have approvals for two pipelines that will generate thousands of jobs for all Canadians. All regions will benefit.

Canadians finally have a government that works with provincial entities to make things happen, and that is what will have the impact Canadians want. We will work hard for Canada's middle class and for those aspiring to be part of it. We will ultimately see more jobs and a healthier environment. There is so much more to come.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader will have two and a half minutes remaining in his time when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of private members’ business has now expired, and the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

[For continuation of proceedings see part B]