Debates of May 16th, 2019

Fairness for All Canadian Taxpayers Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 29, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Oral Questions

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the day after the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith was elected in that riding's by-election, I rose in this House to ask about the possibility of adding more independent questions to accommodate the growing number of independent MPs. The Green Party is not a recognized party in this House, so its MPs are adding to the number of independents, which is now 21, the largest ever in Canadian history.

It seems only logical that as the number of independent MPs increases, the number of opportunities for us to participate in question period should increase correspondingly. However, the government House leader rejected this suggestion, stating, “There is a formula to determine the number of questions for each party and for independents.” It would be nice to know what that formula is. Perhaps the government will be able to provide a more detailed answer this evening.

I can certainly say that the soon-to-be-21 independent MPs are now sharing only 14 spots in question period every week. We compare that to the officially recognized opposition parties. An NDP caucus of 41 MPs gets 54 question period spots every week, and a Conservative caucus of 97 MPs gets 120 questions per week. I think we all accept the idea that officially recognized parties would receive some extra questions. They get a bit of a bonus.

However, it seems that the current formula, such as it is, is completely out of whack. To provide a direct comparison, the NDP caucus has about twice as many MPs as the independent group, yet receives nearly four times as many spots in question period every week. It does not strike me that this represents a reasonable allocation of question period opportunities or that it provides a fair chance for independent MPs to speak up for our constituents.

Of course, there is a bit of history to this question. Earlier in this Parliament, the Bloc Québécois, which is also part of the independent group, raised a point of privilege, requesting more spots in question period. The Chair ruled that this was not a matter of privilege. Fair enough, but I want to emphasize that this ruling does not mean that the current allocation is proper or that it makes sense. There may not be a right to more questions as a matter of privilege, but surely common sense would suggest that the allocation of questions should reflect, roughly speaking, the allocation of MPs.

Therefore, when the government House leader says that there is a formula, at the start of this Parliament what that formula meant was that there were as many questions for independents as there were independent MPs. When I became an independent MP, the Speaker added another question to the Tuesday question period to maintain that balance, but since then we have had seven more independent MPs and no additional independent questions. I think that is where the allocation breaks down, and I hope the government would support reallocating some opportunities to independent MPs to restore a proper equilibrium.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows well, the Speaker actually did address the issue late last year in October. Let me be very specific by reading the Speaker's ruling:

I would be remiss if I looked at this matter only through the lens of just one group of members and their right to speak. Instead, I must manage all proceedings, including question period, effectively for the benefit of all members. It is the view of the Chair that the current allotment of 14 questions per week for independent members maintains an appropriate balance with respect to the management of time, the rights of independent members, and the longstanding practices of this House.

The Chair notes that recently, some of the time slots made available to independent members have not been used. I would therefore encourage independent members to consult table officers, who remain available to assist in any way necessary, with a view to ensuring that these opportunities are optimized for the benefit of all.

This is what the Speaker of the House has indicated. I would highly suggest that whether it is representatives of the independents to make the necessary arrangements with the Speaker's office to sit down and have that discussion. It might be somewhat fruitful for the member opposite to do something of that nature.

I do not know if the member would be able to indicate that there are no extra questions. Are all the questions that have been allocated to the independents used every day? That would be helpful information to bring to the Speaker's attention.

We as the government are not necessarily taking a side per se, other than to reinforce that the Speaker has made a ruling on the matter after no doubt having done a considerable amount of research. From our perspective, we have taken some initiatives to modernize the House of Commons in order to improve our democracy.

For example, we changed question period to make government and the Prime Minister more accountable. There is a new Prime Minister's question period in which the PM answers every question on that day. The Prime Minister had done more than 40 Prime Minister's question periods, answering over 1,600 questions. It is absolutely unprecedented.

We have ensured that Liberal MPs have a strong voice in the House by permitting free votes, except on matters of confidence, election promises or protections guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We have introduced legislation to ensure that the all-party Board of Internal Economy, which for years operated in secrecy, is now public. We have made Parliament more family friendly and helped encourage the next generation of women to run for office by arranging for votes at better times of the day and allowing parental leave for parliamentarians.

Over the last number of years, I have seen many different ideas from people about ways we can improve the conditions of parliamentarians, and we want to explore different options. On a couple of occasions in the last couple of years, there was the opportunity to have that sort of dialogue at the committee on procedure and House affairs, and that sort of dialogue is very healthy.

I would encourage the member to make an appointment with the Speaker's office and report back and see if some other accommodations could be taken into consideration.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary began by quoting a Speaker's ruling that 14 question period slots were appropriate for independent MPs. The Speaker made that ruling at a time when there were only 15 independent MPs. I think it was reasonable at that point in time. Of course, there are now going to be 21 independent MPs, and what I am suggesting is that the number of questions should be related to the number of MPs.

The parliamentary secretary also raised the question about whether the slots allocated to independents are being used. I am pleased to assure him that they are, every week. We now have 21 MPs sharing 14 slots, so certainly if someone is not available, other MPs step in very quickly to fill those spots. The utilization of those spots is a matter of public record. It is not at all in doubt.

The fundamental point here is that it is quite strange to imagine that there is a formula for question period that is totally disconnected from the actual numbers of MPs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the number of independents at any given time can actually fluctuate quite significantly, even immediately following elections.

Political parties are often short by one or two or three in terms of not having party status. There is consideration the Speakers give to independents. There is a sense of trust and faith that the Speaker will respond in a way that is most fitting, given the makeup of the chamber. We have confidence in the Speaker being able to do that.

I would suggest to my colleague across the way that we have 21 more days, 21 sitting days between now and the next election. It is never too late. I would encourage the member to make that appointment and meet with the Speaker.

Intergovernmental Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight at adjournment proceedings to talk about the answer I received to a question in question period quite some time ago. It was in the first week back after the Christmas break.

I asked the Minister of National Revenue why the government would not allow Quebeckers to file only a single tax return, as has been committed to under a future Conservative government that I look forward to in a few months.

In response to that question, the minister, and many members will probably remember this, accused the previous government of “Chop, chop, chop” at the Canada Revenue Agency during its time. It was interesting that day, because the member for Edmonton West pointed out that the departmental plan for the Canada Revenue Agency actually shows that it was the Liberals who reduced the full-time equivalents at the Canada Revenue Agency in their first year in office. Furthermore, according to their departmental plan, the Liberals are going to chop, chop, chop another 800 full-time equivalents over the coming year, this year to next year.

This is a digression, certainly from the main point of the question. I do not think any Canadian really cares how many tax collectors work at the CRA. What Canadians care about is that they get the service they need to get and that they are treated fairly by the agency, regardless of how many people are employed at the agency.

Under the Liberal government, the service at the agency has been a consistent problem in every way we have looked at, whether it was the treatment of disabled Canadians, the treatment of parents with respect to the Canada child benefit or the treatment of Canadians compared to Canadians who have offshore transactions, and the Auditor General's report took a look at that.

These are important considerations. Having to file two tax returns is just another way in which, collectively, the government makes life more difficult for citizens in Quebec. In the debate on this issue, I have heard a lot of things. First, the government members accused the Conservatives of pandering to Quebec and dared me to say the same thing in English that we were saying in French. Of course, I have said it many times, including in that question and by choosing to participate in tonight's late show. Others also said that I should say that in my riding.

People in Calgary Rocky Ridge want to have a smaller government. They do not like red tape. They do not think any Canadian should have to file two tax returns. They do not think that any Canadian should have to have onerous compliance responsibilities, regardless of where they live in Canada.

I am very happy and proud that I am part of a political party that is committed to making life simpler for Canadians, in Quebec and indeed all across Canada.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, for the second night in a row, I am here to speak to the Conservatives' empty promise to implement a single tax return for the Province of Quebec that would be administered by Revenu Québec.

Last night, I shared the facts that identify why this proposal does not make sense. Also, let us not forget the potential impact it would have for Canadian taxpayers across the country. As explained many times, we strongly disagree with the Conservatives' proposal to have the Province of Quebec administer the federal tax system for Quebeckers.

Currently, the federal government, nine provinces and three territories have harmonized their definition of income and have a single tax return administrated by the federal government. This is the simplification and the savings Quebec is looking for. However, Quebec has different definitions, different rules and different exemptions. Therefore, to have a single tax return in Quebec, a choice has to be made: either Quebec adopts Canada's tax framework, or Canada and nine provinces and three territories have to change and adopt Quebec's way of doing things. We have yet to hear which of these two options the Conservatives prefer.

As in 2015, in leading up to October the Conservatives will have one set of promises for Quebec and another for the rest of Canada. We all know that this promise of a single tax return is empty. The Conservatives know they have no intention of keeping it, and Quebeckers will see right through it.

On this side of the House, we have been absolutely clear that we support a single tax return for Quebeckers, but only if it is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, just like it is across the country. Knowing that the Government of Quebec has a different point of view, we chose to be honest with Quebeckers. Instead of making empty promises, we chose to work with the Province of Quebec to make the filing of tax returns as simple as possible.

The Canada Revenue Agency and Revenu Québec have a long history of close collaboration, of sharing best practices in tax and benefit administration on an ongoing basis. That is why our government has met with representatives from the Government of Quebec to discuss ways to make tax filing easier for Quebec residents. That is also why we have collaborated on initiatives such as the volunteer program.

This income tax assistance volunteer program provides assistance to people who are unable to complete their income tax returns themselves and who cannot afford the services of a professional. This great program is jointly administered by the Canada Revenue Agency and Revenu Québec, with the collaboration of hundreds of community organizations and thousands of volunteers. Each year the program's volunteers provide tens of thousands of people with assistance to ensure that Quebeckers receive the credits and benefits to which they are entitled.

The CRA is also committed to administering a tax system that is fair for all taxpayers from coast to coast. Tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance is a complex, global issue, and it requires global solutions to track down people and businesses who engage in elaborate tax schemes.

Let us not forget the importance of the Canada's international partnerships and the international agreements and tax treaties that fall under federal jurisdiction. Collaborating with international partners is essential to tracking down people and businesses that are avoiding and evading paying taxes.

Work with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, for example, has led to the common reporting standard initiative. The common reporting standard allows the automated exchange of information with other countries. With these agreements, Canada and almost 100 other countries exchange financial account information. A province would have no jurisdiction to navigate these partnerships, to take advantage of these international agreements, or to have access to the information they provide.

We see that the CRA and Revenu Québec have similar goals: to ensure a fair tax system and to ensure that Canadians receive the credits and benefits to which they are entitled. We will continue working together to do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her remarks, but I am disappointed with the answer to the issues.

It is quite similar to, and perhaps typical of, the broader Liberal policy on the CRA: We support a single tax return for Quebeckers, but we just will not let them have one; we support the idea of measuring the income tax gap, but we are just not going to do it; we believe that we should make it easier for Canadians to receive the credits and benefits to which they are entitled, but we are just going to crack down and claw back from disabled Canadians and recipients of the Canada child benefit.

Canadians, after three and a half years, are tired of the empty promise and the action that does not support the stated objectives. I am disappointed by those answers tonight.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will need to be clear again, because I think it was missed. We absolutely support a single tax return for Quebeckers, but only if it is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency. We have been incredibly clear on that point.

Last week, a symposium organized by academics from the Université de Sherbrooke took place, and after a whole day of discussion, invited experts came to a strong conclusion: The issue is far more complex than has been proposed by the Conservatives. Actually, they concluded that if Quebec's aim in this proposal was to save money, the advantage for Quebeckers would be to have one single tax return administered by the CRA, like all other provinces in Canada.

While we disagree on which organization would be best to administer the federal tax in Quebec, we remain committed to working with the Government of Quebec to simplify the tax-filing process for residents of Quebec. Relations between the CRA and Revenu Québec are strong, and we have a long history of collaboration that allows us to share good practices for the benefit of taxpayers in Quebec and the rest of the country.

Carbon Pricing

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand and ask this question.

The original question I asked was on carbon and the reasons we on this side of the House oppose the carbon tax. However, the answer I got back was a lot more of the same empty rhetoric saying that we do not have a plan. We are highly anticipating announcing our plan. I do not know who is more excited, those of us who have been able to be part of feeding into the plan in our caucus or the hon. member who answered my question. I am sure he will be glued to his TV when that plan comes forward.

The carbon tax will raise the cost of living for all Canadians, from gas prices to our groceries. The Liberals say that they will give some Canadians back more than they spend on a carbon tax through a tax rebate, but a one-time payout will not make up for higher bills, groceries or other expenses.

At the same time as Canadians tell the government they cannot afford this tax, the government is considering a plastic tax. That demonstrates how out of touch the Liberals are. Plastic is found in almost everything. Introducing a plastic tax would, like the carbon tax, increase the cost of everything we buy. This comes at a time when more and more Canadians are finding it harder to get by and bankruptcies are increasing.

Instituting this tax is not going to make a dent in the world's emissions, either. Even with a carbon tax, Canada will not achieve its emissions targets under the Paris accord.

It unfairly targets average families and lets big emitters off the hook. The Parliamentary Budget Office found, in its analysis of the carbon tax, that big polluters will pay only 8% of the total revenue collected by the Liberals' carbon tax, leaving the remaining 92% to be paid by families and small businesses. They will also pay these costs through higher gas prices, groceries and home heating costs.

Gas prices have already gone up since April 1. In most provinces, it now costs more than $1.30 a litre to fill up with gas, and this is only going up. The Liberals say these prices are what they want, because it will encourage people to change their behaviour. They want people to think more seriously about the environment before filling up their gas tanks. However, most Canadians do not have other options.

Rural Canadians do not have any public transit. If they go from point A to point B, they have to drive. With different work schedules, most families cannot go down to one car. That does not mean that these people just do not care about the environment. These people are realistic about what they can and cannot do.

Commuters from our suburbs may have more options, but in most cases, public transit is not efficient enough to meet their needs, and they have no choice but to drive into cities for work. Driving to work or school allows them more time with their families. If the Liberals want commuters to use public transit rather than passenger vehicles, they need to develop more efficient and user-friendly services in our cities.

At the same time, this plan will not achieve Canada's emissions reductions under the Paris accord. That is probably why the Liberals plan to hike the carbon tax to $300 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions, up from the current price of $20 a tonne. The Liberals are trying to convince Canadians that they will get back more than they pay in carbon tax.

Can the Liberals tell us how they plan to help Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet under their government's carbon tax scheme?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to address the many aspects of the small speech the hon. member just gave.

The starting point in this analysis for me is that climate change is real. We know that it is driven by human activities and that we have an obligation and an opportunity to do something about it if we simply pull together and muster the political will to implement the solutions that we know exist.

We know, from leading experts in the field, including the winner of the Nobel Prize in economics last year, that implementing a pricing mechanism to reduce GHG emissions is the single most effective thing we can do to help reduce our emissions and prevent the worst consequences of climate change. We are not a one-trick pony. In fact, our plan has over 50 measures. Perhaps another day I would be happy to take the time to walk the hon. member through it.

With respect to the submissions he made in this chamber a moment ago, there are a number of pieces of misinformation that I want to correct. He cited a $300-a-tonne piece. That is not an initiative this government is undertaking. To suggest otherwise would be to mislead the House.

The hon. member has dramatically mischaracterized the contents of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, which in fact pointed out that 80% of households that are subject to the federal system will be better off and that the only people who will pay more are the wealthiest 20% of residents in the four provinces where the plan applies. I note in particular that the most anyone would be out of pocket, after the climate action incentive is factored in, would be the wealthiest 20% of people in Saskatchewan, who will be out of pocket for a grand total of about $50 a year. It is a dollar a week for the richest Canadians. Meanwhile, the average household of four would receive a rebate of $609.

The hon. member has also suggested that somehow big emitters are exempt under our plan. This is an absolute falsehood. Let me state unequivocally that big emitters do pay. The reason families get more as a result of this plan being in place is that big emitters are paying into the same system and the revenues are divided 90% to residents in the province in which the revenue is collected and 10% to small businesses, municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals.

With respect to the question of rural communities, I think this is very important. I represent rural communities, and I agree that not every rural community has access to public transit. We are making the largest investment in the history of public transit in Canada, which is going to pull more cars off the road. Importantly, there are things that rural residents can do as well.

I am happy to highlight the investments we are making in energy efficiency. In my home province of Nova Scotia, we are putting $56 million into a program in partnership with the Province of Nova Scotia that is helping to make the cost of everyday efficiencies more affordable, whether it is home heating or electricity. I made an announcement with some of my colleagues in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia to highlight the rebates that were put on some household products, whether it was smart thermostats or energy-efficient light bulbs, different products that would actually make things more efficient but bring the cost of living down by lowering people's power bill.

To conclude, if the member is concerned about affordability, I would question why his entire caucus opposed the Canada child benefit, which put more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families; why it opposed the middle-class tax cut for nine million Canadian families while we raised taxes on the 1%; and why it opposed a bump-up to the guaranteed income supplement for low-income single seniors.

The hon. member knows that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that the average household will be $2,000 better off as a result of the measures we put in place. We know that the Canadians who are struggling to get by will put this money to good use. We know that we can make our homes and our country more efficient while at the same time seeing economic growth and life being made more affordable for Canadian families.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course we support the child care benefit, because we created the child care benefit on this side of the House. We remember the Liberals' day care plan that never came to fruition. Now they are adopting our plan, at the end of the day.

I thank the member opposite for his answer, but it does not get to the crux of the issue. Under the current government, more and more people are finding it harder to make ends meet. They cannot afford another tax. This does not mean they do not care about the environment, far from it. We know that even with the carbon tax Canada will not achieve its emissions reductions targets under the Paris accord.

This is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. Can the Liberals tell us why they are continuing with this scheme that unfairly targets suburban and rural Canadians?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again I would like to correct a number of falsehoods the member has stated.

The Conservatives put forward the universal child care benefit, and we have altered that to make sure that millionaires no longer receive child care cheques and nine out of 10 Canadian households receive more money at the end of the day. That important social policy innovation was opposed by members of the Conservative Party. With respect to day care, we are making investments that are taking a hold across the entire country right now.

I outlined why life has been made more affordable. I will not repeat my previous remarks.

With respect to the allegation that we will not reach the Paris Agreement targets, again that is false. We are going to get there. To the extent that there is any gap in the data analysis, it is because it has not factored in things like the uptake in electric vehicles; our investments in things like carbon sequestration, which will be taken up with innovation over the next number of years; and the largest single investment in public transit in the history of our country, which is going to help reduce congestion, make cities more efficient and, yes, bring emissions down. We are going to meet our Paris Agreement targets because, quite frankly, there is no choice.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)