Garnett Genuis

[Ottawa River Watershed, February 23rd, 2017]

More seriously, I want to go through a few of the issues on this motion.

This motion asks the House of Commons to direct a particular committee to undertake a study with respect to an issue in the national capital region. From time to time on certain matters of national importance there is an argument for the House of Commons to give this kind of direction to a committee. However, we are seeing an increase in the use of this tool of private members' motions to instruct committees. In general, I do not think that is ideal, because committees provide an opportunity for members of different parties to come together and set an agenda that reflects a view of the larger priorities and the imminent needs with respect to a particular area. Therefore, when a motion instructs a committee, that can really interrupt that process, especially when it is in the context of a fairly tight timeline.

The demand of this motion is for the study to be completed no later than December 2017. We are in the first hour of debate on this motion. Of course there are opportunities for flexibility around the timeline if the member wants to trade the second hour of debate, but it is very likely that if this motion were to pass, it would not pass for a number of months, which would give a fairly limited window of time for the committee that is being instructed to actually undertake the study. That creates some issues, especially when there may be issues of broader national importance. That is not to say that this is not an important question, but it is an important question with respect to a particular region. There may be issues that the committee, in its wisdom, decides need to be studied.

I would encourage members that with issues like this, it is probably worthwhile for members to talk to the members of the committee. There is a provision for members to substitute in at a committee, even to move motions at committees of which they are not regularly a member, and to ask that committee to undertake a study on that basis.

There is a process concern. At some point, as members of this House, if we want to encourage committees to have more autonomy, there is value in saying, even if particular members may agree with the underlying idea, “No, this is something that really should be discussed in the context of the environment committee.” It is important that we discuss and consider those procedural dimensions, as well as the substantive dimensions, because there may be cases where there is a laudable objective, but the process is not the best at proceeding to a discussion on that issue.

I have some concerns not just on the procedural side but also in terms of some of the substantive proposals with respect to this motion. It calls for a study perhaps with a view to the creation of an Ottawa River watershed council. It identifies some specific objectives in the context of the creation of that council, and includes a reference to “ecological integrity”.

I know that many of my colleagues have a concern about what the implications of this would be for development. There are also some concerns about whether this really moves us in the direction of creating additional red tape that is not needed. There are existing organizations. There is a voluntary river-keeper organization that presently exists. It is not clear at all, based on the text of the motion, how this proposed new council would function with the existing organization in place. It adds another organization.

The concern is that as layers are added, with additional requirements, maybe we want to affirm the importance of the Ottawa River. I would certainly affirm that importance, having spent time in Ottawa as a student, as well as spending a fair bit of time here in Ottawa now. Adding an additional council, additional levels of review, and perhaps bureaucracy would make potential development projects much more difficult. That is something we need to have some real pause about.

The member was quite right to point out that there are inter-jurisdictional issues involved, because this is a river that goes between Ontario and Quebec, and the federal government can be part of that discussion. As much as possible, it is ideal that, while recognizing the right of the federal government to impose certain things like this, we try to take advantage of existing mechanisms like a voluntary organization that is already in place and pass the authority and control over as much as possible to more local entities that can be more directly responsible. When we have motions like this one, we are asking the House of Commons as a whole to pronounce on something that in practice has a particular impact in a particular region. Giving authority to those closest to that region creates maximum responsiveness to the needs that may come from the community.

I also alluded to the issue of development. We dealt with this in Bill C-18, which the government proposed with respect to Rouge park. The insertion of the language “ecological integrity” certainly sounds like a good thing on the face of it. I do not think anyone said they were opposed to ecological integrity, but when that term is used in a certain context it can create some real problems for development. The way in which something is managed in a more urbanized setting may not be practical to preserve it exactly as it would be in the absence of human habitation. Therefore, we have to be cautious and realistic when we use certain language that may create a certain chill for development.

These are some of the concerns that I have and I think my colleagues have with respect to the bill. It is proposing a new organization, which looks like it would add administrative layers and red tape that really is not needed. It is proposing a study on the creation of that, when in fact, as my NDP colleague has pointed out, there may be some direct action that can be taken right now. The important thing is that any action taken in this area respects the realities that already exist, such as the voluntary organization that is there and the opportunities for this situation to be managed and dealt with in a more local way.

I have talked about the importance of respecting the committee process. I would not say, always and everywhere, we should never have the House of Commons instruct a committee. There are cases on issues of clear priority for the entire country where the House can give that direction to a committee. However, we should not be doing that all the time with every committee. Just looking at the private member's motions that we have, the trend is to give a lot of instructions to committees to do studies. Those seem to emerge without even being preceded by an attempt to propose that same study in the context of the committee. It would at least be worthwhile to propose a study in the context of a committee and then perhaps if the committee was unwilling to do the study, but the member felt strongly for it, then at least that might be a discussion we could have here in the House. However, in general, it does make sense to defer to the wisdom of the members on that committee as much as possible.

There are procedural questions here. There are questions about what the impact would be in terms of development and possibly putting a chill on development. There are questions about whether it is necessary to propose this additional level of administration, especially when there is an existing voluntary organization in place. By all indications, it is working very well, and it is not at all clear, based on this motion, what the interaction would be between this proposed new organization and that voluntary organization.

I look forward to the continuing debate on this, but certainly those are some concerns I have about the motion.

[Ottawa River Watershed, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague who introduced this bill. Unfortunately, I find his proposal problematic.

I will go into that later on.

I want to recognize the member for bringing this motion forward. I know he has served in this House for a long time, and I am sure he brings this motion forward with the best of intentions. I heard him speak once at an election forum when I was a student at Carleton University. It was that day that I decided to become a Conservative.

[Ottawa River Watershed, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we see this trend, from a procedural perspective, of motions being proposed in the House asking committees to conduct studies on certain things, and I have voted in favour of such motions on certain occasions. However, at the same time, we usually allow committees to be masters of their own domain.

The member has set a fairly tight timeline. Very likely the committee has other business it has envisioned. He is proposing a motion to instruct a committee to do a study on something that is of particular concern in one region. Could the member speak to the wisdom of doing that?

Why would he not simply engage members of the committee and ask when there would be time, in the context of the schedule of the committee, when it might be interested in doing this study, if it fit in with the committee's study plans?

[Business of Supply, February 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, in terms of climate change and in terms of these targets, it is a matter of public record that the previous government was the first government in Canadian history to lower carbon emissions. We did that while the economy was growing. If we look across the board at the different provinces, in every single province if we compare our record to the record of the previous government, emissions went down or they went up by less than they had under the previous Liberal government.

That impact of the policy that we implemented was evident across provinces and it was clearly evident internationally. Some would say it is just because of the global economic downturn, but the fact is our economy grew while our emissions went down and global emissions were growing at the same time, even though Canada was one of the countries least affected by the global recession.

I think it was because we had a policy that recognized that there can be economic growth while reducing emissions, but we have to be smart and targeted about how it is done and there have to be sector-by-sector intensity-based regulations that still allow economic growth and do not encourage businesses to shut things off and go to other jurisdictions, that they encourage business to invest here in Canada but also help us to advance ourselves economically and environmentally.

We had a record. It was working. We will happily put our record against the record of any Liberal government in terms of addressing economic as well as environmental issues.

[Business of Supply, February 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, Canadians watching this will notice that at no point in today's debate do members of the government actually want to speak to the transparency issue. That is very clear. They actually do not want to because they cannot provide explanations of why, even though they are so convinced of the rightness of their position, they do not want to provide that information to Canadians.

I think members can hear in the questioner's comments just how slippery this term “revenue neutral” has become because revenue neutral used to mean that the people would get the money back. Now, “Oh, it is revenue neutral for Ottawa because we are taking money from people and it will go to a different level of government.” This redefinition of language to justify new taxes is consistent from the government, but certainly is troubling for many Canadians.

It is interesting talking about what is happening in the provinces. In Alberta, we have a province that has imposed a carbon tax that was not discussed in the election. If we talk to the people, we will find that these carbon taxes are very unpopular and very often imposed by provincial governments that do not talk about them before elections and are not listening to the objections of people on the ground. We are seeing that in Alberta as well as in Ontario.

[Business of Supply, February 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, who represents perhaps the second most beautiful riding in the country.

I want to take the opportunity to continue the dialogue I was having with the leader of the Green Party on some of these questions, but let me start first by introducing those who are watching at home to the topic that we are talking about and the importance of this motion.

This is a motion that deals with carbon taxes, but also more fundamentally deals with the issue of transparency. We had a Conservative member who asked the government to provide information about what the impact of the carbon tax would be on different income groups: for individuals who are very wealthy, what the impact is going to be of a carbon tax; for people who are struggling economically, what the impact is going to be; for those who are in the middle, what the impact will be; and so on and so forth. It is reasonable for Canadians to expect to have access to this kind of information so that they can make an informed decision. We are having a debate in this House about the possible merits and demerits of a carbon tax, but Canadians need to have full information about what the impact will be on their lives so that they can make an informed decision.

I know a lot of the discussion from all sides has been about the merits, and I will get into some of that as well, but the central point of this motion is whether or not members of the government and members of other parties think that Canadians deserve to have the full information. Initially, the Liberals had suggested that this information was not available, that they had no idea what the impact of this carbon tax will be on different people in different income groups. Then they said, “Actually we know, but we are just not going to tell you.” They came up with various excuses for redacting that information.

It is striking because if the government is so confident in this policy, then it should not be shy about giving all the information to Canadians and making its case in a transparent way, but in fact the government has not done that. The Liberals are not sharing this information. We can only suspect it is because they know and do not want to share, that there will be a disproportionate impact of this tax on those who are struggling, and that they are imposing a tax that will hit hardest those people who are worst off. They do not want people to know that, so they are hiding that information. We are saying the government should share that information so that we can have a clear and open debate.

There is one important question that this whole debate speaks to, but before I get to that, I was having an exchange with the leader of the Green Party specifically about the question of whether we can know the differential impact of a carbon tax given that the way in which this carbon tax will be implemented will vary from province to province. The member quite rightly made the point that there may be different rebates in response to the carbon tax, which will impact people in different income levels and the nature and volume of those rebates may vary from province to province. That is all true, but it does not change the fact that setting aside the rebates we can still have a discussion about what the impact of the tax itself will be on individuals in different income brackets. We should have this information.

The government purportedly has that information but will not share that information. It will be the same from province to province, because with a tax on carbon there are many different mechanisms through which it could happen. There are many different possible uses of the money by the government. However, a tax on carbon is a tax on carbon. At a certain value, we can know based on likely usage patterns of carbon what the differential implications would be. Again, most of the research would suggest that those who are least well off will actually pay the most when it comes to the carbon tax.

There is an important question in this discussion, and that question is, does big government help the poor? Are those who are least well off better off with a bigger government? That is the presumption of some on the political left, especially of the current government, that somehow invariably more taxes, more programs, more government intervention in people's lives is going to respond to questions of income inequality and is going to help those who are least well off. Frankly, the Liberals say it so often that they may actually believe it, but there is no evidence at all that big government is what people who are struggling economically need or want. In fact, in many cases we can see the opposite. We can see big government intervention policies being worse for those who are struggling economically.

In this context, it is important to revisit the record of the previous government, as well as the current government, when it comes to tax policy. The previous government lowered the GST; lowered the tax rate for the lowest-income bracket; raised the base personal exemption; made reforms to EI, which would have positioned us for significant reductions in payroll taxes; and introduced the small business hiring credit.

What do these tax changes all have in common? They all target those who are least well-off.

The GST is the tax that everybody pays. Raising the base personal exemption means that many low-income Canadians would no longer pay taxes. We took those policies and opened the door for lower payroll taxes. Again, these are taxes that anyone who is employed is going to pay and that max out at a certain point. The small business hiring credit, again, is aimed at cutting taxes in a way that would help people get jobs. These were all tax changes that we made that helped those who are least well-off.

The Prime Minister says, frequently, that Conservatives think that if we help those at the top, that is the way to help society. In fact, it is a fact, and he should know it if he does not, that the previous Conservative government actually did not make any changes to the tax rates for high-income earners. We only lowered the income tax rates for the lowest tax bracket, and we made other tax reductions and changes that stimulated economic activity by actually targeting that tax relief to those who are in the lowest tax bracket.

That is what low-income Canadians, those working hard to join the middle class, as well as those who are in the middle class, need; that is what they want.

What is the record of the present government when it comes to taxes affecting low-income Canadians? It eliminated various tax credits for families; it undid the EI reforms that we brought in; in fact, it is in the process of raising payroll taxes, through the changes that it is making to the pension program; it raised the small business tax rate; and it eliminated the hiring credit.

Already up to now, even before the carbon tax, we have seen the government raise taxes on those who are struggling the most, and its so-called middle-class tax cut provides no benefit whatsoever for those making $45,000 a year or less.

The government's decision to cut back the tax-free savings account maximum disproportionately affects those who are struggling economically. We know that, because of the relative impact of tax-free savings accounts versus RRSPs, tax-free savings accounts are often the savings vehicles of choice for the middle class and those working hard to join it, to coin a phrase, not for those who are on the higher end.

It is really striking, if we compare the realities of the record, that indisputably it has always been Conservatives who have been helping those who are economically struggling. We have done it, not by expanding government, but by lowering their taxes, and it is Liberals who have often, perversely, in the name of economic equality concerns, raised taxes, including raised taxes on those struggling. They have used the money to facilitate their government largesse, which ostensibly includes travelling around the world giving speeches about income inequality. They take from the poor to facilitate opportunities to speak in all kinds of fora about income inequality. I would say this is the height of cynicism, but we had the whole electoral reform flip-flop, so I will say it is close to the height of cynicism.

This brings us, though, to the carbon tax because, again, we see the government bringing in new taxes that target those, we suspect, who are struggling the most and its completely unwillingness to provide any kind of clear information about this at all.

I just want to say, in response to one of the points that have been made, it is important for Canadians to know that many of the Conservatives who the government has cited as supposedly supporting its approach to the carbon tax have actually been very critical of the current government's approach when it comes to carbon taxation. They have suggested other models, but they have not at all supported the government's approach when it comes to this area. I think that is an important clarification. We are the party that is helping people of all incomes but especially by targeting tax relief to those who need it most. It is the current government that is raising taxes for those who actually need the help the most.

[Business of Supply, February 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I have a brief follow-up to my previous question.

The member said the incidence, depending on income group, will depend on how a product is implemented, but I do not think that would be the case if we are talking about a tax on carbon, because a tax on carbon is a tax on carbon. Of course, the rebate could be different. What we do with the money could be different. However, if we charge a particular tax on carbon, that will have the same impact. The way it will impact will depend on what carbon we use, not on other factors. Is that not correct?

[Business of Supply, February 23rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, there are many things I could say on this topic and that the member and I might disagree on in terms of the specific issue of a carbon tax, but I do want to ask her about the transparency component of the motion, because the motion speaks to the fact that the government should release data about who would be most impacted by the carbon tax. The member and I might disagree about a carbon tax, but at the end of the day, I think we should agree that Canadians have a right to access that information. They can make an evaluation based on the information out there about the pros and cons of a carbon tax if they have all the data in front of them.

Would the member agree that Canadians should be able to see the data about who is paying more or less, vis-à-vis the carbon tax, so that they can come to an informed conclusion?

[Foreign Investment, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In keeping with protocol to recognize the presence in the gallery of two of Alberta's fiercest carbon tax fighters, MLAs Prasad Panda and Derek Fildebrandt—

[Petitions, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, income splitting is a basic tax fairness measure because it ensures that families making the same income pay the same rate of tax and the same amount of tax. That is why I am pleased to table a petition today signed by people from my constituency calling for the reinstatement of the family tax credit, which was, unfortunately, cancelled by the government when it took office.