Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-44.
“Pleased” is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration because I do not really know where to begin talking about Bill C-44, which is 290 pages long and affects about 30 different acts and some 450 sections.
As the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, I have had the privilege of spending several hours examining the bill and even doing a clause-by-clause study. I would have liked to speak to the House about several aspects of the bill, but I will focus on just a couple. I will speak about those aspects I believe are the most important ones to address in today’s debate. I will be trying to persuade my colleagues on all sides of the House to support the amendments proposed here at the report stage. These are mostly to remove some of the bill’s provisions that we believe are bad.
We are not alone in thinking this; sometimes, even the Conservatives agree with us on this. The Bloc Québécois and the Green Party also proposed amendments at committee, and once again, at the report stage, they have tried to improve, if that is possible, Bill C-44 by removing some of the more highly problematic parts that witnesses repeatedly brought to the committee’s attention. I will therefore speak to the House about some of these issues.
First, although I decry the length of the bill, I must say that I am very disappointed, as the national revenue critic for the NDP. I myself have asked the Minister of National Revenue several times in the House about combatting tax evasion. I have urged her to act on the issue of combatting tax evasion. Unfortunately, Bill C-44 would have been a good opportunity to introduce a few meaningful measures to fight tax evasion, measures that were even in the motion we recently put forward, I believe in March. This motion, which aimed to more effectively combat tax evasion, received the Liberal government’s support and was adopted by the House.
After the vote that took place on March 8, I think, one could have hoped for a follow-up on these commitments in the budget, on March 22, especially through a cap on stock options for corporate CEOs. It would have been a good way, through this bill, to combat tax evasion and make sure that each and everyone pays their fair share. Nevertheless, it was completely excluded from the bill, and I was very disappointed when I first read Bill C-44. It is a missed opportunity to do more on that front.
While the government refuses to act against tax evasion in Bill C-44, it is cancelling the public transit tax credit, although this is in no way a means of tax evasion. A total of $250 million went back to the 1.5 million Canadian taxpayers who benefited from the public transit tax credit. Public transit users kept their receipts and, at the end of the year, applied to the government for a refund of part of their transit costs. Although Canadian public transit users—and therefore not the wealthiest—were getting back 250 million dollars, they were told that, since the tax credit was not important, not meaningful, and dit not meet its objectives, it had to be cancelled. On the other hand, tax loopholes for corporate CEOs are being kept. I saw that as completely nonsensical.
I have not even mentioned the increase in numerous fees and taxes contained in the bill. Because I will run out of time, I will mention only the increase in excise duties. I know my colleagues talked about it earlier today, but I want to point out that witnesses all agreed that the increase in excise duties is simply excessive.
Not only are they unfairly increasing them in the budget, but what is more, they will increase each year based on the consumer price index indefinitely. This was condemned by industry stakeholders who obviously see that as a danger for their industry. This is understandable, because it will never stop. Raising excise duties means higher costs for microbreweries, microdistilleries, and vintners of all sizes.
This is certainly something that should be removed from the bill, and the Liberal members will soon have a chance to do so, when we vote later on amendments, at the report stage. I encourage them to remove this aspect from the bill.
I am also asking them to remove another aspect of the bill that has gone somewhat unnoticed, but was also raised in committee, which is the elimination of the exemption for insurers of farming and fishing property. They were eligible for a tax exemption for good reasons, because in the past, farming and fishing businesses had trouble getting their property insured. That is why mutual insurance companies were created. These companies were entitled to an exemption if they kept a certain number of policyholders, who were fishers and farmers.
However, once again, the government is saying that this tax exemption is not significant and absolutely needs to go. However, I will point out that this bill leaves CEOs' stock options untouched.
This is in addition to the changes concerning the parliamentary budget officer, whom I had the chance to talk about a little earlier. We have to admit that the government completely missed the mark on this one. People came to committee to testify about it. There was the current parliamentary budget officer, the previous parliamentary budget officer, Mr. Page, and other subject matter experts. They all condemned the amateurish approach of the government, which introduced woefully inadequate amendments regarding the parliamentary budget officer.
Thank goodness the Liberals saw the light and passed a few amendments even though they rejected all of the opposition's amendments, as usual. At least they admitted to a bad job. The public servants who testified before us had a hard time defending the bill and justifying why they did not consult anyone before introducing it, not even the current or former parliamentary budget officer. It was very clear that they did not consult anyone before moving the amendments and that they had to pick up the pieces in committee. What a fine example of Liberal amateurism. What came to us in committee was a fait accompli, a poorly thought-out and poorly written bill condemned by those it affected most. In this case, that was the parliamentary budget officer.
The other subject that captured the committee's attention was the infrastructure bank. I know that several of my colleagues mentioned this in their speeches, but the infrastructure bank and its mission are ill-conceived. We are talking about revenue-generating infrastructure. The Liberals never mentioned this before. I asked a departmental official what it meant, and he clearly said that it meant tolls and user fees. How else is infrastructure supposed to make a profit? We are going to see tolls popping up all across Canada.
In committee, I moved a motion to include wording about the infrastructure bank from the Liberal Party platform in the budget implementation bill, but my motion was rejected. The Liberals did not approve their very own words about the infrastructure bank's mission. This is clear evidence that the Liberals cannot keep their promises to Canadians. The infrastructure bank is a good example of that because the only people who are going to benefit are the Liberals' friends.
Since my time has expired, I will be very glad to answer questions from my colleagues on anything which might be of interest to them in Bill C-44.
