Publication Search

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union respecting its participation in the parliamentary forum at the United Nations high-level political forum on sustainable development held in New York, United States of America, from July 12 to July 13, 2022.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study of potential trade impacts of the United States Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, seven members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., United States of America, in the Spring of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

And that, in relation to its study of human trafficking of women, girls and gender diverse people, seven members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women be authorized to travel to Vancouver, British Columbia; Toronto, Ontario; Brampton, Ontario; Mississauga, Ontario; Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Halifax, Nova Scotia; and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, in the Spring of 2023, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Friday, March 10, be concurred in.

It is always a privilege to rise in this place, a place of sometimes rancorous debate but also of camaraderie and of mutual respect, no doubt.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

I want to talk today about the pre-budget consultation process. Those at home watching this might be wondering what a pre-budget consultation is. Every year, with notable exceptions like COVID, the government of the day will submit a budget. Prior to that budget, at finance committee, there is a series of consultations that we call the pre-budget consultations. It is an extensive process that I have had the honour to be a part of on multiple occasions. There are stakeholders with varied perspectives, from climate change to productivity studies and various other issues. Some stakeholders have a connection to the budget, perhaps with regard to funding. It is a very prolonged process.

This process has two primary challenges. One is a lack of prioritization and a ceiling on that budget process. The second is that there does not appear to be a tangible or concrete link to the budget-creating process. The finance minister of the day will work with their cabinet, as well as the bureaucracy, to come up with a budget. Along with that process, there are concurrent pre-budget consultations that include stakeholders who come from all over with valuable information, and I certainly have enjoyed hearing from the witnesses. However, the link between what stakeholders are expressing and the actual budget is tentative at best, especially in today's Liberal government.

As one example, for at least four or five years, nearly four years since I have been elected, numerous stakeholders have come before the finance committee in the pre-budget consultation process and have asked for a reduction or complete removal of the escalator tax on beer, wine and spirits. That is an automatic increase in taxes on wine, beer and spirits, every year, without parliamentary consent. Unionized workers for breweries, wineries and distilleries have come forward and said it is impacting their industry and reducing Canadian competitiveness. It even triggered a potential trade war with Australia—

I am going to interrupt the hon. member for a moment to remind everyone that a debate is taking place. There is a bit of a murmur that is getting louder. Before it gets any louder, I want to remind everyone that the hon. member has been interrupted, and we do not want to interrupt more than necessary.

The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hospitality and the respect from my colleagues. I know they are as thrilled to hear about this as I am. Some of those members have wineries, breweries and even distilleries in their various ridings, and they would want to make sure that the workers and the consumers are protected from this tax that increases every year.

We heard this at the Standing Committee on Finance over and over again, but it appears as though the process is not having any impact on the budget. The budget is scheduled to come out next week, and maybe in this budget we will see that the Liberals have decided to listen, after seven years of hearing from stakeholders, unions, consumers and everyone who enjoys a drink of beer.

I enjoy a drink of beer, and I imagine there are quite a few Liberals who do. I do not want to tell tales outside of school, but I have actually seen them drink beer before, and they seem to enjoy it. Therefore, I do not know why they would increase the cost and make it more expensive for everyone else to enjoy a cold beer after a hard day's work.

Another issue that has been brought up over and over again at the pre-budget consultations is the impact of the carbon tax. In fact, at the finance committee, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, said that the carbon tax has an inflationary increase. He estimated it was at nearly half a per cent. That is a huge amount.

One might ask how much half a per cent is. It equates to hundreds of millions of dollars in excess costs because of the carbon tax. Throughout the pre-budget consultations, we heard from numerous groups and individuals, including the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who talked about the potential inflationary impact of taxation and the carbon tax.

If the pre-budget consultation was healthy and working, and the finance minister was actually listening to some stakeholders who are representatives of millions of Canadians, the carbon tax would have been gone years ago.

Another issue I heard about numerous times at the pre-budget consultations is the effect of the marginal tax rates on low-income earners. Maybe not everyone loves taxes as much as I do, and I do not know why, because it is extremely compelling and exciting stuff. The marginal tax rate, for those who perhaps are not aware, is one's total tax rate. It includes clawbacks and it includes the actual tax one is paying.

If one can believe this, the Prime Minister said that lower-income people do not pay taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there are many individuals who earn less than $50,000 a year, and some who earn less than $30,000 or $40,000 a year, who face a marginal effective tax rate of over 50%. That means 50¢ of every dollar they earn over $30,000 or $40,000 is going back to the government.

We heard from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and we heard from numerous economists at the pre-budget consultations. They said over and over that this is detrimental to Canadians. It is affecting Canadians going back to work. Believe it or not, there are some Canadians who are earning less than $60,000 a year who are giving upward of 60% or 70% of every extra dollar they earn to the government.

Imagine a single mom trying to decide whether she should work an extra shift or spend that extra time with her child. Instead of getting 100% of those dollars, or even 80% or 90%, she is only going to get 30% of those dollars. She is a hard-working single mom doing everything she can to raise her family in the best possible way. The government's reward for working the extra shift, staying away from her child, depriving her child of that time and putting in that extra blood, sweat and tears is that she is getting to keep 30% of those dollars. That is 30¢ of each dollar. Two-thirds of the money she is earning is going back to the federal government.

Oftentimes in law, we decide who is in a better position to afford that loss. It is my position that the federal government, with its billions of dollars in largesse, is in a better position to absorb the additional taxation and the additional loss than a single mom.

Clearly, the government thinks otherwise, despite the fact that throughout the pre-budget consultation, we have heard over and over again about this problem. The government keeps charging taxes, with a marginal effective tax rate upwards of 50% on Canadians who are earning less than $50,000 a year.

Another substantial problem with the pre-budget consultation is that there is no overall budget framework. The pre-budget consultation has no budget to it. A lot of the requests are great. They are valuable. They are meaningful investments in the Canadian economy, but there is no overall cap. What happens is that the pre-budget consultation ends up becoming an additional pressure for a government that already has trouble with spending to spend more money. We need a prioritization process, a process that will help any government stay on track, because this government, particularly with its billions of dollars in deficit spending, is putting Canadians in a deeper and deeper hole.

We know that the more the government spends, the more everything costs.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and the Conservatives for this concurrence motion today. This is certainly a topic I love talking about, and I look forward to a 20-minute speech shortly.

The member was talking specifically about the carbon tax and the price on pollution that the government implemented. Conservatives have run two elections suggesting that they will get rid of it, two elections that they lost in the process.

Given the fact that, in the last election this member ran in, not that far away from my riding, he was knocking on doors trying to sell the Conservative version of a price on pollution, how is it possible that Conservatives can be so hypocritical about a price on pollution when this member himself ran on it less than two years ago?

Madam Speaker, it is great to finally recognize, and I appreciate the member recognizing the fact, that it is a carbon tax and that this is a tax plan and not an environmental plan. The number of targets the government has hit is zero.

I refuse to take lessons from a government that is an abject failure on climate change, one of the worst performers in the G7, or in fact in the OECD, with respect to climate change, while destroying Canadian energy.

You are destroying the economy. You are not fighting climate change. It is time for a change.

I am sure the hon. member was not saying that I was doing that, so I would just remind the hon. member to address the questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Madam Speaker, I found that exchange amusing. I do not see how reminding the Conservatives that they lost two elections when they got more votes than the Liberals has anything at all to do with the debate on budget proposals.

My question has to do with the tax on aircraft. There is one thing I do not understand, and I do not know how my colleague can explain it. One of the Bloc Québécois's demands was to put an end to this tax, which is disguised as a social justice measure. The unions involved are also opposed to it. What I do not understand is that this tax was put forward for the first time two years ago.

I can understand the government putting a measure forward originally. However, once the government realizes that the way the measure is written is having a negative impact, then it should do something to remedy the situation.

What does my colleague think about that?

Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I think the translation missed a little bit of that.

What I can say is that, clearly, the Liberal policies have been, intentionally or not, abject failures. The Liberals have been spending to reduce the costs for Canadians, yet mortgages have doubled, rents have doubled and food is going up by 10%. They brought in the carbon tax to supposedly fight climate change. We have not hit a target.

As I said, it is time for a change. We need a government that can get results.

Madam Speaker, in terms of people struggling to make ends meet, I often hear people in the House usurp the story of the single mother, usually men who I know will never experience being a single mom. I was one, as I have mentioned before.

If we are going to talk about helping families get ahead, helping moms not have to work three jobs, I am wondering if the hon. member is open to supporting things that the NDP has put forward in the pre-budget, things that would really help pay the bills, like dental care, pharmacare, and a national child care strategy that puts non-profit and public child care first in this budget.

Madam Speaker, there is some overlap, I believe, between the NDP and the Conservatives. We both see the affordability crisis affecting all of us and, of course, the most vulnerable at the lower end of the economic spectrum.

Where Conservatives, I guess, differ from the NDP is that we believe one of the most effective ways to help individuals is to stop taking their money. We have marginal effective tax rates at over 50%. An individual earning $30,000 a year may be paying 30¢ or 40¢ of every dollar. That is tens of thousands of dollars when it is added to inflation and taxation. The more the government spends, the more it will cost Canadians.

We believe in the individuals and their ability, if in fact the government can just get out of the way.