Debates of Nov. 28th, 2024

Government Business No. 43—Proceedings on Bill C-78

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague has not read the bill. The bill is just about a GST tax relief, which would happen from December 14 to February 15. It would immediately give from 5% to 12% relief, depending on the province. That is, consumers will pay less when they go to the till, so the relief would be immediate. It will carry forward into the new year, but there is nothing about the new year itself.

I think the misrepresentations about the carbon rebate have been misleading. The last time the House heard about carbon, gas prices went down. I think they went down to historical lows. Freaking people out about a carbon rebate increase that is going to happen in April is not the way to scare them away from the benefits of this GST relief.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, for the past while, I have been listening to members boast about lifting the GST for a couple of months so that people can get a better deal on groceries.

However, here is what groceries look like for people living on a budget: milk, not taxed; eggs, not taxed; vegetables, not taxed; fruit, not taxed; pasta, not taxed; and meat, not taxed when it is on sale. Items that are usually taxed include chips, candy, beer, diapers, personal care products and household products, although the last two are not on the list of products that will be exempted. That is what I was looking at two minutes ago.

In the end, is it right to say that the government, by making this argument, is mistaking people for imbeciles?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the member uses very crass language in calling those people, who take their families out for dinner at Christmas, imbeciles. I think that is a very inappropriate word for parents who buy their children books. I think that is a very inappropriate word to call those parents who buy their kids puzzles or children's toys, or who might have a beer or two, or a glass of wine, during the holidays.

I think that is a very derogatory word to call those parents and those folks, who are just trying to enjoy the holidays, give a little cheer to their families and save a few bucks while they are doing it.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Liberals always do half measures. A few weeks ago, we New Democrats tabled a demand to see GST relief across all essentials, including home heating. It is something we tabled last year, but two major parties voted against it. We are finally seeing the Liberals move on something like taking the GST off of essentials and other items. This is a strong way forward to hopefully begin the discussion on making it a permanent relief for Canadians right across the country.

Will the member join New Democrats in calling for the government to see GST removed off of all essentials?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the Liberal government has always had a two-pronged approach to grow the economy and increase the pie. If we grow the economy and increase our GDP growth, then of course we want to give relief to the tax base as much as possible and wherever it is possible. That is why we have targeted relief when it comes to pharmacare, dental care and child care.

We will continue to work to make sure that Canadians get more money in their pockets and get bigger paycheques going forward.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as members know, Greens will be supporting this measure because it does offer some short-term affordability relief. It is not ideal. It is far too broad-based. It includes video game consoles, such as a PS5, which I think we can all agree are not an essential. The measure does not get to the root causes of corporate profiteering. It is far too complicated for small businesses.

It also does not have any new revenue attached to it. Why would the government not have ensured there was new revenue attached, for example through a windfall profits tax on the excess profits of the oil and gas industry?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are giving tax relief to those who need it the most: Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian seniors. We will continue to do that.

With respect to more economic growth, I think sales will go up. People will be able to spend a bit more, and we will probably see the government coffers having a little more revenue at the end of the day as well.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak to the matters of the day and the issues as they impact Canadians, specifically as they impact my constituents back home in London. Global inflation is, by definition, a world phenomenon that has impacted the middle class and lower-income populations in particular, and we see that effect in Canada, too. The past few years have been very difficult for Canadians. They have counted on a federal government that has been there, that has seen them through the most difficult years of the pandemic and that has put in place landmark policy, groundbreaking policy, that is intended and is having the effect of helping make everyday costs more affordable.

I think of, for example, the dental care program. The Canada dental care program now has over a million people who have registered for it. Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition said it does not exist. It certainly exists. We can ask the seniors in my riding back home in London. My seatmate here is from Winnipeg. We can ask his constituents. We can ask my other seatmate from Brampton. They fought for it. Every single member of Parliament on this side, and I will say in the NDP as well, as it was behind the idea, recognized the importance of a dental care program, particularly in the context of inflation.

We also see a federal government that has moved ahead with child care, recognizing the importance $10-a-day child care has for young families. In fact, the vision for that did exist at one time from the Conservatives back in 1987. The only difference is that Brian Mulroney and his government were an example of a Progressive Conservative government. They tried to put in place a national child care program at that time, but because of political reasons, it did not work out. Certainly, former prime minister Martin and people like Ken Dryden attempted as well. Also for political reasons, that did not work out.

This government was able to get it done. We see that in excess of 110,000 women have been able to re-enter the workforce now because of a child care program that is affordable. In fact, the economist Jim Stanford says that over the next 10 years, he expects 1 million women to be able to re-enter the workforce because child care is now going to be so affordable in this country. It turns out that social policy is good economic policy. This is something Conservatives have never, unfortunately, understood.

There is the school food program to make sure kids are able to go to school and have some food in their bellies, that they have what they need to succeed as children. We are ensuring we have that fundamental basis of dignity to make sure kids in this country have what they need to succeed. That is not asking for too much. In fact, Canada is one of the advanced democracies that has come to this late, unfortunately. It was the government, working with other interested parties in the House of Commons, making sure we were standing by our constituents the whole way. That is now moving forward to ensure elementary schools and high schools will have the opportunity to offer hot meals to kids, whether it is breakfast programs, lunch programs or whatever the case might be.

We do have examples of that in Canada, but it is a patchwork quilt. It has been volunteer organizations that have offered it in the main. Here, we have a federal government that is going to fund that work. This is tremendously important for our future as well. We have put in place these measures, but we still see challenges. While inflation has come back to normal levels because of the financial stewardship of the government, we have to make sure that we continue to be there for Canadians who are faced with a difficult time when it comes to the cost of living.

I hear it from my constituents. We all do. When they go to the grocery store, it is difficult. When they go to purchase clothes for their kids, it can be difficult. When they want to go eat out, whether it is just as an individual or as a family, it can be difficult. If we go out to an average family restaurant, as a family of four, that bill is going to be a high one.

The federal government has recognized that people are going through these challenges, so it has put forward a tax break, a tax cut. This is something Conservatives talk about a lot. However, today we saw the Leader of the Opposition announcing, in a declarative tone, which he seemed to be very proud of, that they are not going to support this measure of lifting GST/HST for the period starting on December 14 and continuing past Valentine's Day, ending on February 15.

The Conservatives are in a party that says it is for the everyday person, apparently. It is a party that says, only apparently, that it stands for tax cutting. No, it does not. In fact, we should not be too surprised at all, because when this government moved ahead not once but twice to cut taxes for the middle class, who stood against it? The Conservatives did. When this government moved ahead and cut taxes for small businesses, who stood in the way? The Conservatives did. However, we were still able to get those measures through. When we were able to, in the pandemic years, stand by small businesses to make sure they had the emergency supports they needed, who stood in the way there too? The Conservatives did.

They do it every single time. They present this mirage, a kind of fiction, that they are there for the everyday person, whether it is the worker, the family or the small business owner, but they do not believe in those things, as it turns out. What we have in the House of Commons that really shows what we are all about is our vote. The vote does the talking every single time, and the Conservatives' votes are where the proof in the pudding is. There is not much proof there; there really is not.

We have a measure that would go a long way for everyday people, for people in the middle class and for people working hard to join the middle class. In question period today, I talked about a young family, and I am a relatively new father myself. Child seats are expensive things, running into hundreds of dollars. We are going to lift the tax on them. I think of what that would mean for the young couple getting ready to start a family. It is expensive. They have to worry about all of the essentials and pay tax on top of that, but we would lift the tax on, for example, child seats, diapers and children's clothing.

Those are just examples that pertain to a young family. What about a family that wants to spend more time together, maybe take a bit of a load off, go out and enjoy a restaurant? The tax would be lifted there too. Who benefits? It is not just that family but entrepreneurs, who continue to be the backbone of this country's economy. That is something this government recognizes and something that parties in the House that will support this measure recognize.

I just heard my colleague from the Green Party say that he is onside with this. That is a very good thing. I know that NDP members have said they are onside with this, but I wonder where the Conservatives are on this, the so-called party of entrepreneurship and free enterprise. I want the Conservatives to go back and look at what Restaurants Canada has said. It said in a very clear statement that not supporting a measure like this would be irresponsible, because a measure like this would not just be good for families, as I said, for individuals and for businesses, but would also act as an economic stimulus during challenging times.

We have weathered the storm quite well. We still see historically low, at least relatively, unemployment rates in this country, just in excess of 6%, but that has come down significantly in the past few years. We see a AAA credit rating. We see the lowest debt and deficit in the entire G7, and Canada, according to the International Monetary Fund, is poised to lead economic growth in the coming years in the G7. I know my Conservative friends are not in the habit of quoting what they call “elite organizations”, but I think the views of the IMF should be taken seriously.

The economic fundamentals are quite strong. That puts those in the middle class and those with a lower income on a good footing for a good future, but they need this support right now in the immediate. That is why the government is seized with this kind of vision.

We are going to continue to be there for Canadians every step of the way, for my constituents in London and for constituents across the country. The Conservatives still have some time. I just hope they reverse their decision on this and stand up for a responsible vision. This policy is responsible. They should stand up for the idea that they have to be on the side of the people and have their backs during tough times. That is exactly what we are going to continue to do.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague really believe that a family that cannot afford a $100 meal will be able to afford a $95 meal thanks to the GST cut?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I think it is a very responsible policy.

This policy offers something for the middle class during very difficult times. My colleague has talked a lot about the middle class in the House, but the Bloc Québécois is not here for the middle class.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing the Liberal member wax eloquently about how compassionate the Liberals are toward the people of Canada. However, I would like to compare that to what the Conservatives are offering: the permanent elimination of the carbon tax, which makes everything more expensive, and cutting the GST for new home purchases, which will add 30,000 jobs and make life much less expensive for people entering the market.

This plan is two months long and comes right before the government raises the taxes on many other things, including the carbon tax. Does the member want to compare his plan with our plan?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, does the member think I would not know about his voting record, not just in the House of Commons but during his time as a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia? He supported pricing carbon at that time. He was in the government of Gordon Campbell. He stood in that legislature and championed the idea of carbon pricing, and here tonight he offers a different perspective. Now I see he is smiling. He knows he has been caught.

On top of that, he talks about the Conservatives' big, bold idea to cut the GST from the purchase price of homes. How would they pay for that? By getting rid of the housing accelerator fund, which is responsible for building homes across the country, including in 68 Conservative-held constituencies. They would cancel that program to the detriment of this country and their constituents. They are not serious.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the NDP asked for the GST to be removed from home heating. I wonder if the member can explain to the House why the Liberals did not listen to us and make sure this tax relief could be extended to people who have to pay a higher cost for home heating.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, every time the member engages in debate, she offers a perspective that is important.

If we look at the list of items that would be eligible for the GST/HST cut, we see a very long list that would benefit Canadians across the country. We are talking about everyday essentials. I would be very happy to speak with the member more on that particular idea.

I think we have something here. It is a two-month holiday, essentially, which will go a long way toward help constituents not only in my riding back home in London, but in her constituency as well, particularly the low-income Canadians she has always championed in the House of Commons.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is a very erudite colleague and I turn to him for answers.

Members on the other side are saying that this policy is inflationary, yet in 2008, the Harper government reduced the GST by 1% on everything, in other words, everything in the basket of goods used to calculate the CPI. We are just taking the GST off a very narrowly focused basket of goods for a temporary period of time, which is a slow point in the retail cycle.

How is it that the other reduction of the GST was not inflationary, but this one is? In both cases, there were government deficits.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has been a mentor to many of us on the Liberal side and was the caucus chair when I was first elected. He is very kind to offer those comments.

What I will say to him is that I cannot possibly explain Conservative contradictions. I can do many things, but I cannot do that. However, Doug Ford champions this policy. It is not inflationary at all.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hard-working, common-sense Conservative member for Fundy Royal.

It is always an honour to rise to address the House, but unfortunately I do so this evening without optimism and without enthusiasm. Instead, I am forced to rise with disappointment and frustration given the state of the House of Commons.

In the past 24 hours, we have seen the tired, weak and desperate Liberals use closure and programming motions to avoid accountability for their scandals and to attempt to distract Canadians with their temporary, two-month tax trick. What is interesting about Motion No. 43 is that it is a guillotine motion that has itself been guillotined by a guillotine motion. This is a motion that would introduce closure on a motion that is about closure and stopping debate.

Here we are this evening debating Motion No. 43. I want to say that Bill C-78 was written on the back of a cocktail napkin, but it seems more appropriately to say the bill was written on an Etch A Sketch. The Liberals have taken it, shaken it and changed it a few times to try to get the NDP on board, and no one knows exactly what the next shake will do.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has shut down debate on not one but two matters of privilege today so that the Liberals can force through their temporary, short-sighted tax trick legislation. The problem is that the Liberals are afraid of the Canadian people. They know that their parliamentary calendar is slipping away and that the days they have left to bring legislation before the House of Commons are limited. They know that a strong, common-sense Conservative government is on the horizon. When our common-sense Conservative Party takes power after a carbon tax election, we will be able to deliver for the hard-working Canadians we have the honour of representing.

We know the Liberal government has allowed its entire legislative agenda to be paralyzed. Why is the House paralyzed from considering all other pieces of legislation? It is because the Liberals violated an order of the House of Commons from June 10 wherein they were required to table documents with the clerk so they could be turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This begs the question: What is so damning in those documents that the Liberals would shut down Parliament for two months to prevent the Mounties from getting them?

What does this programming motion today actually do? It shuts down debate on Bill C-78. In the House, there are 338 seats, yet all but five of the hon. members who sit in those seats will be prevented from debating this piece of legislation. Billions of dollars of spending will not be debated in the House because of this programming motion.

Even more egregious is that the Liberal programming motion means the temporary tax trick bill would skip the committee process altogether. This means it would not go to the finance committee so we could hear from experts. It would not go to the finance committee so we could hear from the Canadians who will be affected by the bill. It would not go to the finance committee so we could hear from the small businesses and small business workers who would be affected. There would not be an opportunity to make amendments to this piece of legislation.

No sensible legislative body ought to agree to this process outside of an emergency situation. Let us be clear: Plummeting Liberal poll numbers may seem like an emergency to the Liberal government, but it is not an emergency for the Canadian people, who we have the great honour of representing.

If we read this programming motion, this guillotine motion, it has the wording “deemed requested, “deemed referred”, “deemed considered”, “deemed reported”, “deemed concurred in” and “deemed read a third time and passed”. It is as lazy as it is reckless. This programming motion is not democratic. In fact, it is an affront to transparency and Canadian democracy.

Why is the Liberal government doing this? Why would the Liberals bring forward this temporary tax trick at this time? It is because it is a distraction from the other scandals that they are involved in. There is the ArriveCAN scandal, in which two guys in a basement were paid millions of dollars for no actual IT work. There is the $400-million Liberal green slush fund, which is currently under consideration in the House as a matter of privilege. There is the ever-evolving scandal around the disgraced former minister of employment, the member for Edmonton Centre, who falsely claimed indigenous status in order to gain contracts from the Liberal government; this has also led to its own question of privilege. The misconduct and ethical lapses of the Liberal government are outright disgraceful. Finally, last week, after weeks of opposition members' demanding action, the member for Edmonton Centre stepped down from the Liberal cabinet. However, I can assure members that the good people of Edmonton Centre are watching. I know that, after the next election, they will remove him as the member of Parliament for that riding so that a common-sense Conservative member can represent those fine people.

What happened right after the member quit being in cabinet? The Prime Minister and the finance minister obviously took to Google and typed in “ways to distract Canadians”. They came up with this new temporary tax trick. The Prime Minister may have been googling it at the Taylor Swift concert as he kept changing different ways of doing that. However, Canadians do not just see this as bad vibes, as might be noted, but as a real challenge for going forward and for their livelihoods.

As I know many colleagues on this side of the House do, I talk regularly with local constituents and local small business owners. These small business owners may have one, two, three or four employees. They put in long hours, late into the night, and they are up early in the morning before the sun rises in order to build a business for themselves, for their families and for their communities. While I have been speaking with local businesses over the last few days, they have told me of their real concerns about the impact this temporary tax trick will have on their businesses, on their point of sale and their computer systems. They will have to shoulder the costs of updating those systems for December 14 and then again on February 15, which is Flag Day in Canada, and they are going to have to bear those costs. They are also concerned about the potential for audits down the way for incorrectly applying these new rules, albeit through no fault of their own. What is more, because this falls over the new year, it is two fiscal years for most businesses, and so they would have the double challenge of being audited twice for the challenges of this program.

I have received a number of emails, and I will read one from a small business owner, who wrote that the “Federal government DOES NOTHING but expects us to eat the cost of trying to Make the Federal government look good” and “we then must do more work to turn all of this off in February”. He concluded, “[S]orry if I'm not very supportive of this very badly thought-out policy.” That is from a small business owner who is expressing the concerns that so many of us have heard about how this program was brought about.

Let us talk again about the temporary nature of this program. It goes until February 15. What happens about six weeks after that? First, the escalator tax on wine, beer and spirits goes up automatically. Even worse, on the Liberals' way to quadrupling the carbon tax on April 1, we will once again see the carbon tax rise on the way to costing 61¢ per litre. This is simply unacceptable.

This policy is poorly thought out. We should not have been at this point in Parliament, with the Liberals so desperate to implement a temporary tax trick to try to distract Canadians from their poor record as a government. The Liberals have made the House unworkable. This is not the policy that we should be going forward with. We should be having a carbon tax election so that Canadians can make the decision that they want to see a strong, common-sense Conservative government after the next election.

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

Madam Speaker, really and truly, Conservatives do not have any shame. We can think about what they actually say they are collectively voting against. They said they believe in a GST holiday. They literally campaigned on that. Not only did their former leader tweet it, but their current leader retweeted it. It was a wonderful, beautiful idea when they campaigned on it, and they made a promise to do what we are actually doing. We are fulfilling one of the commitments they made a couple of years ago.

It does not make sense. They are now voting against it. I do not know how members of the Conservative Party can justify breaking a promise that they made to Canadians and that we are actually putting into place, let alone the fact that they are telling their constituents that, sorry, they have to listen to their leader because their leader has told them they have to vote against it. That is the real reason.

Does the hon. member really believe that Erin O'Toole and his campaign platform were absolutely worthless? Is that what we can anticipate at the next election?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to stand up on behalf of the people I serve, the great people of Perth—Wellington. What the people of Perth—Wellington and what people across the country are demanding is a carbon tax election. They want the ability to have a say on where the carbon tax goes. On this side, we will oppose the carbon tax. That is the comparison. On the Liberal side, they are offering a temporary, two-month tax trick on certain items. On this side, we are offering the permanent cancellation of the carbon tax for all Canadians across the board.

We are also saying that we should take the GST off new home construction under $1 million so that we can see the spurring of up to 30,000 new homes being built each and every year. The people I talk to who are having trouble and challenges finding a place to live that is in their price range will benefit from that, and it will spur growth in our communities, be helpful for the economy and ensure that the cost of living goes down for Canadians.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, a family of four that can afford to spend $100 on a restaurant meal in Quebec ends up paying $115. The GST is 5%, and the QST is about 10%. Then there is the $15 tip. If the government removes the GST on restaurant meals, this family will save $5. Will that really make a difference? Will that really make it possible for an average family with financial difficulties to go to a restaurant, or is the government just blowing smoke?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for her question. Much like in the ridings of many of my colleagues, people and families in my riding are turning to food banks. These folks are not going out to restaurants. They cannot afford it. This bill is not going to help families using food banks or those who cannot afford to spend any money on their families. This Prime Minister and this Liberal government have created an economy where everything is more expensive for Canadians. This bill will not help most Canadians.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the last Harper government, which was a majority government, of course, Stephen Harper time allocated over 100 government bills. Considering that, I would imagine that it is hard for Canadians to believe that the current Conservative Party is so upset about the fact that there is a time allocation here.

Considering that record, would the member agree that time allocation on over 100 bills is deeply undemocratic?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, what is deeply undemocratic is a Liberal government that campaigned on not using it and then hypocritically uses it so often, allowing only hours of debate. In this case, we were allowed to debate for an hour and 15 minutes on a major tax policy measure; it will have almost no debate in the House, no debate in committee and no room for amendments.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to join in this debate tonight. A desperate government makes a transparent attempt to distract Canadians, Canadians who have been suffering. I listen to constituents in my riding of Fundy Royal, where individuals and families are struggling to make ends meet. They are struggling to put food on the table, to pay their mortgages and to pay their heating bills. Why is that? It has something to do with a government that has doubled the cost of a mortgage, doubled the cost of rent and increased the cost of groceries. Every April 1, by increasing the carbon tax, the government is also piling on new costs for people to drive their kids to a hockey game or to get themselves to work.

The government offers up what amounts to a tax trick after piling all these costs on Canadians, after making it so difficult for hard-working Canadians. I include small businesses in this, which I am going to speak about shortly. If it was not so serious, if people were not hurting so much, it would be laughable.

Who would think of an idea to lift the GST off a Christmas tree but only if someone buys the Christmas tree December 15. If they buy it before then, they do not get the break. This is just a small example of the kind of complication this is going to add and the misery this is going to pile on small businesses at what is sometimes their most challenging time of year.

Today I had the opportunity to speak to an individual at a small business in my riding of Fundy Royal. It is in a small community. Small businesses in my riding are the backbone of our community. They give back so much. They are the ones coaching and providing support to charities in the region. They are the ones helping out those who need a hand and providing employment in small communities. This individual, with desperation in her voice, was telling me that, after everything they had gone through with the pandemic, after barely hanging on, she cannot implement this change the government has brought in. At her busiest time of year, she does not have the resources to change all her systems over to accommodate what the government has just dumped in her lap.

Any one of us would struggle to decipher what the government is doing. The CRA, which is ever so helpful, has come out with some guidelines, and we need to take a look at them. Exempt now for two months from the GST are toys that “[i]mitate another item, whether real or imaginary” or “[i]nvolve building, creating or assembling structures, objects or models by using pieces, parts, materials or modelling compound”. Okay, that makes some sense.

However, not exempt are “[t]oys and model sets that are marketed for adults (for example, adult Lego or train sets)”. How is the small business owner in my riding supposed to decipher those things? The CRA directive on what qualifies as a toy includes this: “Card games, including playing cards and Pokémon cards”. A Pokémon card is eligible for this two-month reprieve. However, if someone buys their kids hockey cards, that is not eligible for the exemption.

Physical video games will be tax-free. When I was growing up, we finally got the opportunity to get an Atari because someone else had bought a Nintendo. It played physical games. When someone else got a Super Nintendo and I got a Nintendo, again, this played physical games. However, young people are now downloading video games. They are not buying physical games. According to the CRA, thanks to what the government has done, physical video games qualify, but online-only and downloadable video games are not included. I can assure everyone that the people on that side of the House, the Liberal government members, do not understand the confusion they have just wrought; Canadians are certainly not going to understand it. The person who will be responsible for all this will be the small business owner.

The individual I spoke to today told me how horrified she is that, in trying to interpret this mess, she will be on the hook and that CRA and the government will be coming after her if she gets it wrong and charges GST where she was not supposed to or exempts it when she was not supposed to.

Let us talk about children's clothing and footwear. “Sports clothing, dancewear, such as jerseys, ski jackets, leotards and dual-purpose swimwear that can reasonably be worn outside of sports or dance activities” are exempt. However, “Specialized clothing and footwear designed exclusively for sports or [those same] recreational activities” are not exempt. “Adult clothing and footwear...if it's purchased for a child”, so if someone buys clothing for a child, but it happens to be adult size, again, are not exempt.

It goes on when we are talking about physical books. They say on the other side that physical books are tax-free. Okay, that is simple enough to me, but now look at how the CRA helpfully explains that. “Guidebooks and atlases that do not mostly contain street or road maps” are exempt so if they do contain mostly street or road maps, they are not exempt. “Magazines and periodicals (that have no more than 5% of their printed space devoted to advertising)” are exempt, so for the entrepreneur in my riding who owns her business, who has to do all the accounting, if she sells a magazine that has 6% advertising, then it is not exempt, but if it is 5% advertising it is exempt. How is she, at the busiest time of year, supposed to decipher this mess?

The Liberals tell us that books are tax-free; however, “Colouring books, scrapbooks, sticker books, sketchbooks”; “Books designed primarily for writing on, such as address books, diaries, journals, and notebooks”; “Certain directories and collections of street or road maps”; e-books and audio books are not GST-free.

That is just a short example that just scratches the surface. I guarantee no one in here understands what I just said, and the individuals in my riding who are trying to run a small business should not be expected to have to deal with this.

At a time when people are suffering, on this side of the House we are offering actual help; we are offering to axe the carbon tax that has increased the cost of everything for my constituents who are seniors, have young families, are entrepreneurs or are farmers. The carbon tax has increased the cost of heating their home, driving to work and taking their kids to hockey. The government has increased the cost of food because it is taxing farmers, truckers and everyone along the supply chain who puts food on a family's table. In Canada, our food cost increase has outpaced the U.S. by 36%. What is the difference between us and the U.S. right now? We have a carbon tax and they do not. Canadian families suffer from the misguided policies of the government.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, “Only 4% of small business owners believe they will have stronger sales as a result” of these temporary measures. However, they go on to say that “small firms”, perhaps like the constituent I was talking to today, will face approximately “$1,000 in additional costs to reprogram their point-of-sale system to remove and then reinstate” applicable taxes. I think in some cases that $1,000 may be underestimated.

A constituent of mine, who is a business owner, wrote to me today, “The GST holiday is crazy. To take the GST off takeout, restaurant, alcohol and, considering the fresh, healthy groceries don't have the tax...is only taking taxes off less healthy junk food options.”

My constituents get it, small business gets it and we on this side of the House get it. We are going to provide real tax relief for Canadians by axing the tax and we are going to stand up against the Liberal government's gimmicks.

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

Madam Speaker, Erin O'Toole got it, so did the 337 other Conservative candidates who ran in the last federal election, including that member. Their election platform said they would do the same thing. Their former leader tweeted that he was going to provide this GST break for the holiday season. The leader of the Conservative Party retweeted the idea.

Now, the members seem to express concerns about or give excuses for how they have managed to get themselves into that pretzel twist and turn and flip-flop to justify their vote. The bottom line is they say they want to give a tax break to Canadians, and when it comes right down to a vote, they do the same thing they did when it came to giving a break and cutting the taxes for the middle class: they vote against it.

Does the member not see the hypocrisy there?