House of Commons Hansard #315 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pricing.

Topics

Question No. 1720Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

With regard to government advertisements (ads) launched on Facebook since January 1, 2016: (a) how many ads have been launched by month and what were the corresponding campaigns for each (ie. employment insurance, citizenship services, tax credits, grants, etc.); (b) how long was each ad active for online; (c) what were the insights for each ad launched, including (i) how many people were reached by each ad, (ii) what percentage of women and men were reached by each ad, (iii) what were the age group ranges used for each ad, (iv) what were the federal, provincial, or municipal regions targeted by each ad, (v) were specific interests, pages, or likes included in the targeting of the ads, broken down by ad; and (d) who in the department or Minister’s office receives or has access to the data gathered in the insights of these ads?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1722Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

June 14th, 2018 / 10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

With regard to individuals who have crossed the border illegally and are currently being housed in accommodations being paid for, funded, or operated by the government: (a) what is the current number of individuals in such accommodations; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by city and province; (c) what is the list of facilities, such as stadiums or hotels where large groups of individuals (more than 100) are being accommodated; (d) for each location in (c), what is the number of individuals housed at each location; and (e) what is the projected total expenditures on such accommodations for the 2018 calendar year?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1723Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Alupa A. Clarke

With regard to each contracts granted by any department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, since October 26, 2016, to The Gandalf Group or any of its partners, what are: (a) the vendors' names; (b) the contracts' reference and file numbers; (c) the dates of the contracts; (d) the descriptions of the services provided; (e) the delivery dates; (f) the original contracts' values; (g) the final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values; and (h) the details of any research, polling, or advice provided to the government as a result of such contracts?

(Return tabled0

Question No. 1724Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency: (a) how many individuals have been falsely or accidentally declared deceased by the Agency when they were actually alive, since January 1, 2016; (b) what was the average time between when the CRA declared an individual dead and when the mistake was corrected; and (c) what was the average time it took the CRA to fully pay the lost benefits that it owed individuals who were falsely declared dead by the CRA, from the day that the CRA was first notified of their mistake?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1726Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

With regard to expenditures related to accommodations, including operational and other expenses at such locations, for individuals who illegally or irregularly crossed the border: (a) what is the total of all expenditures in 2017; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1727Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB

With regard to renovation, redesign and re-furnishing of Ministers’ or Deputy Ministers’ offices since April 1, 2016: (a) what is the total cost of any spending on renovating, redesigning, and re-furnishing for each ministerial office, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) moving services, (iii) renovating services, (iv) painting, (v) flooring, (vi) furniture, (vii) appliances, (viii) art installation, (ix) all other expenditures; and (b) what is the total cost of any spending on renovating, redesigning, and re-furnishing for each Deputy Minister’s office, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) moving services, (iii) renovating services, (iv) painting, (v) flooring, (vi) furniture, (vii) appliances, (viii) art installation, (ix) all other expenditures?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1728Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

With regard to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue during the adjournment proceedings of April 17, 2018, that “In 2015-16, the EI program received more than 365,000 sickness benefit claims, and paid out over $1.5 billion for this type of benefit. On average, recipients claimed 10 weeks of benefits of the maximum entitlement of 15 weeks. This shows that, in the majority of cases, the available coverage is sufficient”: (a) how many people applied to use the benefit for each calendar year between 2004 and 2017; (b) how many people received the benefit for each calendar year between 2004 and 2017; (c) how many people claimed 10 weeks of benefits out of the maximum entitlement of 15 weeks in (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017; (d) how many people claimed 15 weeks of benefits in (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017; (e) how many people claimed 14 weeks of benefits in (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017; (f) how many people claimed 13 weeks of benefits in (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017; (g) how many people claimed 12 weeks of benefits in (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017; and (h) how many people claimed 11 weeks of benefits in (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Today, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bill based on the main estimates 2018. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill be distributed now?

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

moved:

That, given the government’s failure to provide a clear explanation of the costs of its carbon tax policy, and given that the people of Ontario have rejected the carbon tax, the House call on the government to table, by June 22, 2018, how much the proposed federal carbon tax of $50 per tonne will cost a median Canadian family.

Mr. Speaker, though I speak here and now, and in the present, I want to reach back into our ancient history to discuss our ancient rights and liberties as parliamentary people.

We inherited this place from our British ancestors, who gathered in the fields of Runnymede to force King John to sign the Magna Carta. Among the demands made by what we today would call “citizens” but then were called “subjects” was that the crown could not levy funds for which there had not been provided general consent. In other words, King John and his predecessors had plundered the people in order to fund endless foreign wars and costly ventures, and had done so without the consent of the people actually paying the bills. From that grew a principle that would eventually be called in American terms “no taxation without representation”. In other words, the government cannot tax what legislatures do not approve. That principle remains here today.

As members know, governments are banned from levying any tax or in fact making any expenditures before it is approved by this here, a gathering of the commoners. It is not enough for the Senate, which historically represented the aristocracy, to make that approval. It does not represent the common people who pay those costs. We do. We are the representatives of the commoners, and that is why we are here in the House of Commons standing, as we are, on this green carpet representing the fields from which the original commoners came and for whose consent we are the ones delegated to provide.

Before the House of Commons at present is a budget bill that would levy a new tax, a carbon tax. That tax would apply to any good that uses fossil fuels in their production or transport to bring it to consumers. As a result, the tax will raise the cost of almost every consumer good people buy, not only those products that are directly made with fossil fuels but those that are transported or produced by those fuels. Not only will our gas prices, home heating prices, and other fuel costs rise, but our groceries, which come by truck and train, will also become expensive. Consumer goods like furniture and clothing, which also have to be transported to retail outlets, will become more expensive. The government will collect the revenues on those increased costs.

However, unlike other taxes, the costs were not itemized for everyday Canadians. If we pay income tax, we file and we find out what we pay. If we pay HST, we look at our bill and we see how much tax formed part of our purchase price. Therefore, Canadians can generally, if imprecisely, calculate what each tax is costing them. Carbon taxes are far more insidious. Their costs are embedded inside the products and services that people buy but they are not itemized on any receipt. Therefore, if grocers raise the costs of fresh fruits and vegetables to feed our kids, we might assume that they are to blame, when in fact they are not behind the cost increase; rather, it is the government and its carbon tax that is causing that price inflation.

The government is proposing to move forward with this tax to embed all of these price increases in the purchases that Canadians make without telling them what it would cost. One defence it might otherwise have made for this secrecy is that it does not know what it would cost. However, that is not true. I have obtained numerous documents, which I have attempted to table in this House, in which the government has calculated the costs. It says that it has tables in which the costs for the average household is calculated, yet it blacks out the numbers, denying Parliament the information it needs in order to vote on this budget bill.

I spoke earlier about the principle of no taxation without representation. Well, there can be no representation without information. The government cannot tax what Parliament does not approve, but Parliament cannot approve what it does not know. Therefore, there can be no taxation without information.

The government has that information but refuses to release it. Why? What is the motivation for keeping all of this secret? I think it is the same motivation that a high-priced retailer has when trying to sell an excessively expensive product. They do not put the price on a product, but ask that a person bring the item up to the front and make a psychological decision to buy it. Only after, when one has one's credit card out, does one find out what it costs.

My experience is that when I walk through a retail outlet and there is a product that does not have a price tag on it, it is because it is too expensive and I cannot afford it. That may well be why the government is trying to sell the carbon tax without telling people what it will cost them. Even worse, unlike the retailer who at some point prior to the transaction must reveal the cost, in this case, the Liberals do not even propose to reveal the cost after the purchase is made. In other words, people will be paying sums of money to the government without even knowing they are doing it, because those sums are buried in literally millions of products and services that Canadians buy every week and every day.

We, on this side of this House as Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, cannot countenance this violation of our ancient right to know what the government costs us. That is why I am announcing today that we have put forward over 200 motions to object to the spending bill the government has just tabled before the House. We will keep the government here voting for as long as 30 hours until it releases every single document it has since the last federal election indicating what this tax will cost the average Canadian family.

I notice that we have a very enthusiastic group of Conservatives here who are prepared to stand and do their duty, to stand and defend taxpayers, to stay here all night if they have to, and stay as long as necessary to defend the people they represent. However, there is no enthusiasm on that side of the House of Commons. I hear nothing but deafening silence, and I see nothing but glum faces. Many of the backbenchers on that side are actually decent and conscientious people, but I am sure members will forgive me for saying that they feel no comfort in watching their privileged front bench cover up the facts from their constituents. I know that they will find it miserable to sit there and vote time after time to protect the secrecy of the front bench as it moves forward with this new, insidious, secretive tax. We know that the Liberals have a majority, but we will use our numbers, such as they are, the strong mandate of the official opposition that we have been given, to make it as difficult as possible for the government to pull off this rip-off.

If members want any proof that this is anything but a tax grab, look at how the Liberals are taxing the tax. They propose to impose the GST not just on products people buy but on the carbon tax cost of those products. Let us say that a Canadian buys some furniture at a furniture store, just like any other middle-class suburban family would do to furnish their home. Of course, the furniture would be subject to a goods and services tax, but there is also another tax hidden within the cost of that furniture, and that is the cost of the carbon tax that has been borne by those who produced the furniture and then transported the furniture.

All of those costs get transferred to the customer. The customer always gets the cost passed down. The government not only proposes that the GST should apply to the furniture but also to the carbon tax cost on that furniture. In other words, it is a tax on a tax.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia alone the federal government will collect a quarter billion dollars in GST on the carbon tax. Imagine what those costs would be right across the country in the form of GST on the carbon tax. Canadians are being forced to pay a tax for the privilege of paying another tax. I asked the government about this and it said this is how the GST works. According to the government, it applies to all the goods and services Canadians buy.

Is the carbon tax a good or a service? I am not sure it is any good except in being of service to the government's plan to take more money from everyday taxpayers. As my friend to the left of me said, it is a disservice to everybody else.

We are calling on the government to release all the documents in its possession. I know the government will try to get out of this voting session tonight by coming up with some phony number that it will invent at the eleventh hour in order to let all of its MPs go home. I want to be very specific about this. We want every single document produced by every single department that calculates the cost of the carbon tax to every single Canadian that has been produced since the last election.

There is no reason why the government cannot do this. We are not looking for commercially sensitive information. What commercial sensitivity could possibly exist in telling people what they are going to have to pay? There is no national security reason the government should not do this, although ironically, the government might go so far as to make an argument for such exemptions. It did use an exemption under an access to information request, that it says in the act that revealing to Canadians the cost of the carbon tax would imperil the government's ability to manage the economy. That was the exemption the government used in the existing Access to Information Act in order to justify withholding information.

Not only will the carbon tax that the Liberals have designed damage the economy, mere knowledge of its cost could be damaging to the government's ability to administer the economy, according to the government. Let us be realistic here. If the carbon tax is going to damage the economy, keeping its cost secret is not going to mitigate those damages. That excuse does not work.

The Liberals say the carbon tax is a provincial policy, that it has nothing to do with them, so they cannot possibly release any information on it. Bill C-74 is a federal government bill introduced in the House of Commons to impose a carbon tax at a national level. If it were simply a provincial issue, we would not need federal legislation, so therefore it is a federal issue.

Then the Liberals say some of these numbers are outdated, that they go back two years. They claim the whole world has changed in two years, so members do not need that crazy old data; they will keep it to themselves. Well, if it is so old, just release it and explain to Canadians why it is not applicable anymore. They should just say the numbers are very high and that they will damage the middle-class Canadian household. They should just tell us that there is no reason to worry because it is old information and it is no longer relevant, that they have new information with which to replace it, and that they will let Canadians look at all those facts and in their wisdom decide who to believe. That objection does not work.

I am very curious to hear throughout the day specific justifications from members of the government for keeping these costs secret. Even those who support a carbon tax should be in favour of telling people what it costs. If it is worth what it costs, then why not provide those costs and justify them in making the case? However, the government will not do that. It wants to keep those costs secret because if the costs become known, then one of the claims the government has made will be disproven. It has claimed that the carbon tax is going to be revenue neutral. To be revenue neutral the government would have to tell people what it is collecting and what people are paying in the first place.

How can we believe the Liberals are going to neutralize a cost if we do not know what that cost is? If they were really going to neutralize the effect on middle- and working-class households of this new tax, they would first need to say, “Here's what it costs and here's what you're getting back in some other tax reduction”. However, they will not do that because this is not revenue neutral. The reason we know that is because I specifically asked officials with Environment Canada and Finance Canada at the committee whether the government would use the proceeds of the tax to lower other taxes, in other words to let people keep more through income tax savings in order to compensate them for what extra they pay in carbon taxes. The officials in both those departments confirmed that the government intends to do no such thing. It will not use the revenues to reduce any other tax. In fact, it will use these revenues in order to spend more money. That is the Liberals' definition of revenue neutral. If Canadians send it, they will spend it. Saying they are going to raise a tax, but not to worry, they will spend every penny, is not revenue neutral. It is a tax grab.

We know we cannot trust the government on money. Just yesterday, I stood up in the House of Commons and quoted a Fraser Institute study showing that 81% of middle-class Canadians are paying more income tax today than when the Prime Minister took office. The Prime Minister stood up and said, “That's not what the report said at all. Come on”. It turns out he had similar denials on the floor of the House of Commons, and he had so offended the report's authors that they actually took what is perhaps the unprecedented step of asking newspapers to run a guest column where they could correct the Prime Minister and point out that indeed Canadian middle-class taxpayers are paying more because of the policies of the Prime Minister, which is exactly the opposite of what he promised in the last election.

After I disproved his claim about the report, he stood up and said, “Okay, Liberals have raised taxes, but they've just taken away boutique tax credits from rich people”. By rich people he means anyone who used the public transit tax credit to take the bus. If someone takes the bus they are too rich for the Prime Minister. He takes a limousine; they take the bus. Taxpayers who used the children's fitness tax credit to put their kids in soccer and hockey are too rich, according to the Prime Minister, and they deserve a tax increase. Students who used the textbook tax credit to buy their expensive books in order to learn are too rich according to the Prime Minister, and according to him they deserve a tax increase. All of this is just a bit rich coming from our trust fund millionaire Prime Minister, who has never once raised taxes on himself.

On this side of the House, we will continue to stand up for working-class taxpayers to give them the chance to earn a better life and keep more of what they earn. We believe in putting people before government, a principle that is 800 years old, a principle that helped inspire the very creation of the parliamentary system in which we operate and debate today, and in which we will stand and vote hour after hour for the rights of taxpayers tonight.

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Whitby Ontario

Liberal

Celina Caesar-Chavannes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ended his speech with the phrase “putting people” first. This government has put people first. We have put people first by thinking about their health. We have put people first by thinking about the planet on which we live. That is why we are putting a price on pollution.

In 2015, Canadians paid $39 billion toward pollution. That would cost a family of four $4,300 per year to pay for pollution. We are trying to create a system that not only reduces that and puts a cost on what we do not want, but also ensure we have a healthy environment for our children and our grandchildren.

Also, we are ensuring that businesses are part of a clean economy, a clean tech economy, which is a $23 trillion industry, and reduces pollution. We are putting people first by looking after their health, by looking after future generations, and having businesses being part of a clean growth economy, which will improve the economic situation for a lot of Canadians, putting them first.

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be arguing that the carbon tax is worth the cost. I do not know how she could have concluded that if we do not know the cost. The government will not even tell us how much greenhouse gas will be reduced by this tax, which is its supposed benefit. Therefore, we are supposed to do a cost-benefit analysis without either knowing the cost or the benefit.

It is also interesting that she claims to know the potential market of all these new so-called green industries. She has calculated it to be $23 trillion. I do not know how the government can be capable of calculating something of such an enormous magnitude when it apparently cannot calculate for the House the cost of the carbon tax on the average Canadian family. Why should we believe any of the Liberal numbers if the government will not tell us all of the numbers?

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my Conservative colleague's view of the government investing $4.5 billion of public money in the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and the possibility that may even come from Canada pension plan funds, or maybe from the infrastructure bank that the finance minister established. How does that that square with the government's action on climate change?

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, the great Ronald Reagan once said of Liberals and their view on the economy, “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” That is what we have today: a government that has so weighed down our energy sector with rules, regulations, uncertainty, and taxes, that it is not economical for it to build a pipeline with its own money. Therefore, the government has to build it with other people's money.

We know governments are not particularly good at this. The government paid more money for this pipeline project than anyone in the marketplace was prepared to pay. In other words, it obviously paid more than the market value. The government paid twice as much as the seller said was the book value of the project, and that is just to buy a pipeline that has existed since 1953. The $4.5 billion purchase price does not build a single centimetre of new pipeline capacity. This is a government bailout quickly transforming into a government boondoggle.

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Louis-Hébert Québec

Liberal

Joël Lightbound LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Carleton this. Back in 2008, he campaigned for a price on carbon pollution through a cap and trade system. It was called “Turning the Corner”. The Conservatives soon turned the page on that plan, but it was very important to him back then.

My first question for the member is this. In the 10 years since, what has changed? Is there not more evidence of climate change? Is he denying climate change? Is he denying that we should take action on climate change? What has changed since 2008 to today?

My second question for the member for Carleton is this. We know the Conservatives have a plan; they just cover-up that plan. We would like to know their plan to fight climate change. Now they have taken a different approach than the one they had in 2008. They say that they have a plan, but they do not want to tell Canadians. They do not want to go that far.