House of Commons Debates VOLUME 148 Ï NUMBER 091 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 42nd PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, October 17, 2016 Speaker: The Honourable Geoff Regan CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 5673 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, October 17, 2016 The House met at 11 a.m. available to public education in the provinces. However, what about imposing a carbon tax? If the Liberals were sincere about this new- found principle, they would not be imposing a carbon tax. Prayer Furthermore, if the Liberals believed they should not meddle in provincial jurisdiction, we would not see the standoff between the provincial health ministers and the Minister of Health at the federal PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS level with regard to the next health accord. Clearly, the argument that this is under provincial jurisdiction at this point is one of Ï (1100) convenience and not one of principle. [English] I would submit that since this bill only affects the GST rebate, EXCISE TAX ACT which in fact is a federal tax, this bill safely stays within the The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that jurisdiction of the federal government. The real reason that the Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (school authorities), Liberals oppose this bill is that they broke the bank and they cannot be read the second time and referred to a committee. afford this tax break to public schools, and hence this tax break to the Ms. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am middle class. It is hard to be a tax-and-spend government when pleased to support Bill C-241 to reduce the cost of GST to our local elected on the heels of a Conservative government that cut taxes for schools in Canada. The federal government already provides a 68% families to the lowest rates in 50 years. I understand that. rebate for the GST cost to schools. However, this bill would reduce the impact of the GST for the remaining 32%. All members of the What we have seen from the Liberals is absolutely unchecked House should be able to agree that the federal government should not spending. A $10-billion-a-year promised deficit has ballooned to a be making money off of the back of our education system in Canada. $30-billion-a-year actual deficit. A tax cut for the middle class that was supposed to be revenue neutral turned out to cost the federal Canadian families understand how tight resources are at their local government $1 billion per year, which in turn will be passed on to schools. For instance, look at the number of fundraisers that parents the taxpayer. The economy, despite budget 2016, continues to have to participate in on a yearly basis. In the history of Canada, sputter, with dismal growth performance and plunging investor parents have never been required to pay the number of fees that they confidence. are today, whether it is for pencils, craft materials, or surcharges for athletics, music, or shop classes. Parents know that there is simply I am generally a fairly optimistic person, but the Liberals are not enough money to provide the quality of education that they digging Canada into debt at levels we have not seen before, and it is desire for their children. the next generation who will be forced to repay it. The government is mortgaging the futures of our students, which this bill is attempting Using 2014-15 as a benchmark, this bill would save schools to help. across Canada a total of $187 million, which is almost $200 million a year that would be reinvested into Canada's future generation. This works out to tens of thousands of dollars for each and every school The Liberal government says it would be imprudent to make across our country, which is why it is so perplexing that the Liberal piecemeal changes to the GST because of their tax review. However, government would oppose this bill. we all know that this review will not be looking to decrease taxes. Instead of giving hope to parents that the federal government Ï (1105) could in some small way help their schools, the Liberals have said that they are in fact opposed. However, wait a minute, would this not The Liberals are so far into the red that it would appear they have mean that the Liberals are opposed to helping the middle class? no choice but to look for hidden ways to raise taxes to pay for their out-of-control spending. We have already seen this with the I am a little more than confused by the Liberal logic here. increased payroll taxes that the Liberals have recently brought in. According to the parliamentary secretary, the Liberals will not be The expansion of the CPP will start taxing people at a higher rate in supporting this bill because it infringes, they say, on provincial the very near future, but Canadians will not see the benefit of this for jurisdiction, and that it would increase the amount of money at least 40 years. 5674 COMMONS DEBATES October 17, 2016 Private Members' Business The Liberals cancelled the legislated tax cut to small businesses, school in the morning, those parents want to know that the thus breaking their campaign promise, while also promising to bring government is doing everything in its power to benefit the future of in a crippling carbon tax that will make small businesses even less their children. This legislation would help provide that support. This competitive against the American market and result in many legislation is about our future generation. This legislation is about Canadians losing their jobs. supporting Canada. The government also cancelled a whole host of tax cuts for I ask all members of Parliament on this side of the House and Canadian families, largely the middle class. These included cutting across the aisle, especially those with kids, to think about their the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, the children and to consider the future of this great country. I ask them to textbook tax credit, the education tax credit, and income splitting for support this piece of legislation. families. That is a long list. Ï (1110) Who will pay for this reckless economic approach? Our students [Translation] will pay for this approach. Our young people will pay. My Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.): generation will pay for this reckless spending approach. Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to participate in the debate on Bill Canada's demographic pressures are well understood. As the baby C-241, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (school authorities). boomers retire and the size of families shrink, the ratio of Canadians The bill would increase the goods and services tax rebate rate for who are working versus those who are not is approaching school authorities from 68% to 100%. unsustainable levels. To put it simply, there are fewer people working compared to those collecting benefits than at any point in We oppose this bill for a number of reasons, the main one being our history as a nation, and the trend is only getting worse. In 1990, that it would result in federal interference in an area under provincial there were five working Canadians per senior. In 2011, there were jurisdiction. four working Canadians per senior. By 2030, there will be only two working Canadians for every senior. Why is this relevant? It is If we use this tool to give money to schools, that could be relevant because it means that the future government will have less perceived as money given directly to provincial institutions. Why ability to pay down debt because the taxes collected each year will those institutions and not others? How would we decide to whom be needed to pay rising expenses such as pensions and health care this change would apply and to whom it would not? I am not saying costs. it must never be done, but it is important to have an organized approach to making these choices rather than doing it randomly. I support Bill C-241 because I believe that putting money in the pockets of our schools is more important than the wasteful spending Furthermore, this bill would be costly: an estimated $190 million we presently see from the Liberal government. Our schools need in 2016 rising to $220 million by 2021. When the GST was more funding, not a carbon tax that would increase the costs of our introduced, measures were put in place to ensure equal treatment local schools as they are forced to pay more to run their buses, heat across the public sector, and that includes school boards. Making their schools, and purchase supplies. Our rural schools will pay the arbitrary, unfounded changes to the GST could have unexpected heaviest cost. consequences for other levels of government with responsibilities related to primary and secondary school funding. Teachers and other front-line educators tell us that students are losing the ability to learn experientially in our school programs, such I would add that the bill is not in line with our government's as shop, band, and fine arts, because these programs are being primary objective, which is to grow the middle class and the shelved. In place of these creative programs that develop the skills economy. Our government has a much more all-encompassing that young people need to succeed in the skilled trades, these program to stimulate the economy and improve the lives of middle- children are directed to study online, because the Internet is cheaper.