Tax Break for All Canadians Bill
Third Reading--Debate
December 10, 2024
I don’t have any conflicts of interest, I’ve already bought my Christmas tree.
Regarding this noble objective, Senator Forest questioned the wisdom of this measure by pointing out that with a GST holiday, the purpose is to ensure that Canadians have more money in their bank accounts after the holidays.
Why force them to spend in order to receive government assistance? He wondered whether that was not a direct contradiction of the bill’s purpose.
Senator Forest even said that he considered it paradoxical for people to have to spend more money in order to keep more money in their pockets. He saw it as an inconsistency between the goal, which was for people to have more money, and the means to achieve it.
Indeed, for a family to truly benefit from a two-month reduction in the GST, it would have to spend several hundreds of dollars to notice a difference. Would it end up with more money in its pockets? The answer is obvious.
On this matter, Luc Godbout, full professor and chair of taxation and public finance at Université de Sherbrooke was scathing. He said the following:
The way that the federal government chose to intervene, by modifying the way that the GST/HST is applied, is extremely surprising. Political jockeying has clearly prevailed over economic logic. If students had presented a hypothetical plan like that for training purposes, I would have been highly critical of its relevance, the means used to achieve the objective, the administrative burden placed on merchants and the inter-provincial issues involved. In my opinion, the measure is poorly targeted.
David Dodge, former governor of the Bank of Canada, took the same position. He told us the following:
Like Professor Godbout, in my view, the temporary reduction of GST on a range of items is a poor economic policy in both the short and the long run. In the short run, it entails very real adaptation costs, as Mr. Godbout just said, for both the government and businesses, which means the fiscal cost is likely to exceed the actual benefits to consumers. Also, as this fiscal cost is likely to be financed by increased borrowing, the benefit for consumers today simply will result in a reduction in benefits in future years as governments reduce services or increase taxes to manage the increased federal debt service charges.
In fact, the actual savings generated by this legislation are minimal. Sylvain Charlebois, professor with the faculty of management and agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax and scientific director of the Canadian Agri-Food Foresight Institute, told us that researchers at his university’s Agri-Food Analytics Laboratory estimate that the average retail consumer will save about $5 over two months.
This is an average per Canadian, based on the volume of sales and taxes collected by grocers.
To highlight more substantial savings, some people argue that the savings will be greater at restaurants. Again, that will depend on the province, since the tax holiday will differ from province to province, depending on whether the sales tax is harmonized or not.
Take the example of Ontario compared to Quebec. Since Ontario has a harmonized sales tax, the QST holiday will amount to about 13%. In Quebec, however, which has no QST but rather the GST on top of the QST, the savings will amount to 5%.
The average Canadian spends $186 per month on restaurants. For a Quebecer, that would amount to $18.60 over two months.
Of course, there’s a good chance that Gatineau residents will be dining out in Ottawa from December 14, 2024 until the last Valentine’s Day on February 15, 2025, at the latest. Heavy financial losses for Quebec restaurant owners are to be expected.
The minimal impact mentioned by Professor Charlebois will also be felt in other areas, including toy sales. Here’s an example taken from an article published in the Saturday, December 7 edition of the Journal de Montréal:
Lucie Bourbonnais owns La Ribouldingue, a toy and game store in Vaudreuil-Dorion, Montérégie. . . .
Several retailers have already voiced their concerns and complaints about the federal measure, which particularly affects toy and game stores.
“We’ve been hit hard in my field,” said Lucie Bourbonnais. “It means a huge amount of work for businesses like mine,” she added.
She went to say the following:
“To give you an idea, we have over 20,000 active products in the system, so it’s a big job for us.”
Ms. Bourbonnais is convinced that this measure won’t encourage Quebecers to buy games or toys at her store, because of the timing of the GST holiday.
She concluded with the following:
Most Christmas purchases are made a little earlier . . . . Purchases made after December 14 are actually just last-minute ones . . . so tax or no tax, they would have been made anyway.
To conclude on this aspect and as Senator Forest rightly pointed out, consumers are being pushed to spend more in order to take advantage of the GST holiday, which will leave them with less money in their pockets. That is going to have the opposite effect of the bill’s objective.
Let’s turn now to the government’s choices to zero-rate some products and not others. First of all, this list is not exactly a shining example of clarity. I feel very sorry for small retailers like Ms. Bourbonnais, who will have to figure it out themselves. They’re in for a rough night between December 13 and 14. Let’s look at a few examples.
Physical books are considered eligible if the printed books are among the most published, hardcover or softcover. How is the retailer supposed to know whether a book is one of the most published? There are also magazines and periodicals that have no more than 5% of their printed space devoted to advertising, supplied by subscription, if all the consideration is paid during the relief period and only for those magazines or periodicals that are delivered during the relief period. So the poor retailer will have to thumb through each magazine and calculate the percentage of space used for advertising. That makes no sense.
People are also trying to understand the logic of the product selection that appears in the list of tax exemptions. Christmas trees are included, but not the balls or decorations to adorn them. There is nothing sadder than an undecorated Christmas tree. The vision, the thinking behind it is still unclear. Pierre de Coubertin said, “Healthy mind in a healthy body.”
The list of exemptions includes junk food, all sports equipment and anything to do with art, singing and music. Therefore, someone can be exempt when buying a fake guitar, but not a real guitar. A toy guitar will be tax-exempt, but if I want to give my child a real guitar, it won’t be tax-exempt. I can have shoes for running, but not for dancing. All cultural and sporting products are excluded. Notebooks and coloured pencils are excluded.
I asked the finance minister who drew up this list. What is the logic behind not encouraging cultural or sporting activities and food that is healthy for children? Why choose these priorities? It gives the impression that this government favours junk food and video games over sports and culture.
This was the minister’s response:
We needed to see what products were already defined in the tax code to make it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to implement this idea. We were guided by what was possible.
For clothing, diapers, things that children need, everything is well defined in the tax code.
In her reply, the minister seemed to defer to the famous tax code without really answering my question, which, on its face, underlined the absurdity of the government’s list of items.
Fortunately, a Department of Finance official, the Director of GST/HST General Operations and Border Issues in the Sales Tax Division, confirmed the following in response to my questions:
As far as toys are concerned, it’s true that new definitions have been drafted and are included in the bill. Ultimately, the government decides what is and isn’t taxable. As the minister has already said, it was up to the government to decide whether a product was taxable or not.
. . . if an item is within the scope of the bill, it was a government decision. It’s true that some definitions have been used before in certain cases, as I said earlier, and that makes it easier for some vendors already selling these products to implement the bill and it simplifies administration for the Canada Revenue Agency as well. Ultimately, however, the decision whether a product is taxable or not rests with the government.
So it was the government that decided to promote junk food over exercise, and it was the government that decided to promote video games over arts and culture. It’s incomprehensible.
This makeshift list by the government is causing consternation among a lot of merchants. Dan Kelly, President and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, told a CBC journalist that business owners had called him in tears, trying to figure out which products were taxable and which weren’t.
His association spent 10 days trying to get an answer for a recreational goods store owner on how to categorize the materials used to build a model airplane. These are decisions that small business owners have never had to make before. They have to get all that sorted out and ready in two weeks, during their busiest season of the year.
Another cause for concern is the impact that the GST holiday will have on items that are returned. According to Mr. Kelly, retailers could lose money if customers return items that they bought on a credit card before December 14 and then buy them back again during the tax holiday.
They will be losing money because retailers pay fees for every credit card sale. If customers return an item, then the retailer pays another fee to the credit card company, and if the customer then turns around and buys the same item back again, the retailer will have to pay the fee a third time.
Mr. Kelly indicated that a small business could end up paying more in credit card fees than it makes in profit on such items.
Another problem with Bill C-78 is that it will undoubtedly benefit the most fortunate members of our society. Professor Godbout stated the following:
If the objective is to help taxpayers, zero-rating certain products will generate much greater savings in absolute dollar terms for high-income households. If we look at household spending by income quintile — data available from Statistics Canada — the richest spend 7.5 times more on clothing for children under 14 than the poorest. When it comes to store-bought alcoholic beverages, the richest spend 3.3 times more than the poorest, and when it comes to restaurant meals, the richest spend 3.1 times more than the poorest.
Mr. Godbout also talked about the government’s likely motivation for granting a GST holiday, and he also mentioned another measure that would have been fairer and more equitable to all citizens. When we asked him why the Liberal government had opted for a measure that is so unfair to the poorest citizens, he said the following:
It’s probably for visibility reasons, because they wanted to find a new way to help Canadians. Simply increasing the GST credit would have put money in people’s pockets as well, but it could have been more precisely targeted at low-income households, and people would have the choice to spend it or not.
On that, Senator Moncion suggested an interesting hypothesis to professor Godbout. She wondered, rightly so, about the invisibility of using the tax credit that professor Godbout described on the GST and the HST as well as the invisibility of the carbon rebate. She suggested that these measures are invisible, or nearly, to Canadians, while on the contrary, a GST holiday on certain items was a great stunt for the government to pull.
Mr. Godbout acquiesced by noting the following:
When it comes to developing tax policy, sound, long-term economic and budgetary decisions should always take precedence over stunts. This tax holiday is not a substantive measure. We do not know who is going to benefit from it, nor to what extent. People are happy to hear GST holiday, but they do not know how much will end up going back in their pockets. I am not sure that Quebecers are aware that they will be getting less than Ontarians because the tax rates are different.
Honourable senators, in addition to the inequity is creates between the wealthiest and the least fortunate in our country, the bill also creates inequity between the citizens of the different provinces.
As I mentioned before, the tax holiday will vary from one province to another depending on the specific agreement each province has with the federal government. Professor Godbout had this to say about that situation, and I quote:
With regard to the consistency of the measure, to date, when the federal government has put in place ad hoc measures to help Canadian taxpayers, those measures applied uniformly across the country. In the case of the temporary GST/ HST holiday, people are being treated differently, depending on their province of residence. That seems hard to justify. In the provinces that charge GST, there is a 5% holiday, but in the other provinces that charge HST, the holiday varies from 13% to 15%.
Senator Gignac expressed to the Parliamentary Budget Officer his concerns regarding this inequity among residents of different provinces. He told the Parliamentary Budget Officer that this would create distortions, particularly in the Gatineau area. Senate Gignac said that, had the government decided to reduce the GST on everything by 1%, rather than eliminating the GST on certain items for one month during the holidays, this much simpler approach would not have affected the provinces, whereas the way things now stand, the government is messing with the tax base and that is going to create distortions.
It is obvious to our honourable colleague that some Canadians, depending on their province of residence, stand to benefit more from this measure.
As mentioned earlier, another option for achieving the bill’s objective would have been to temporarily increase the GST credit for those who qualify, as has been done in the past. That would have been a much more targeted measure, but it would have been less flashy, which seems to be one of the government’s underlying objectives.
Obviously, Professor Godbout is an advocate for this approach. Here is what he had to say about it:
Right now, hundreds of thousands of retailers are being asked to change their computer systems. It would have been easier to tell a single organization, the CRA, to immediately send all GST credit recipients — that’s 11 million households — $200 per individual or $500 per couple. People would have received $200, $500 or the GST amount. The government could have chosen any amount it wanted. It could have said that anyone who received an amount last September is eligible to receive a certain amount of money that will be mailed out by the CRA right away.
It would have been much simpler and more effective to do it that way. It would have prevented the biases that were raised, such as the fact that a restaurant in Gatineau will have a 5% holiday, while a restaurant in Ottawa will have a 13% holiday. It would have prevented all sorts of issues. It would have been much simpler to manage. There would be no cost for retailers and no risk of them making a mistake when they change their computer systems. The measure could have been much more targeted. The richest households would not have received anything, but are they really the ones that the government wants to try to help with this tax holiday?
From another angle, the former governor of the Bank of Canada had some very interesting comments. He said, and I quote:
In short, senators, it is candy today in exchange for future pain.
But the long-run implications are even worse.
First, the premise of the GST is to have a broad base with as low a rate as possible. Chipping away at that base, even on a temporary basis, makes the tax a much less effective way to raise revenues that are needed for government programs. The results are that either all taxes increase or programs that support ordinary citizens have to be reduced.
Second, and perhaps even more important, our collective need today is to raise investment, not consumption. Without increased investment to give workers the tools they need to raise productivity and, hence, raise the incomes that they are capable of earning, we are condemning ourselves to stagnation or even a decline in our standard of living. By opting for a tax measure that increases consumption, the government has [forgone] the opportunity to increase investments by an equal amount.
Moreover, in Quebec, the provincial government collects a 9.975% sales tax, the QST, and Minister Eric Girard has stated unequivocally that he will not forgo this revenue without compensation. This means that the citizens of the four Atlantic provinces will benefit from a 15% rebate, that is, the 5% GST plus the 10% added by their provincial governments, while this rebate will be 13%. None of the other three provinces that impose a provincial sales tax, namely Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia, have announced any intention to suspend it at the same time as the GST.
In Quebec, Finance Minister Eric Girard has confirmed that the Quebec government will not harmonize its sales tax with Ottawa’s, arguing that this was an improvised measure by Justin Trudeau that will have no impact on the economy.
However, the Legault administration would have followed suit if the Quebec government had received full compensation from the federal government. The minister said, “It’s a surprising and somewhat unexpected measure that is improvised.” Mr. Girard then added that he would rather “take measures that have an impact on Quebec’s economic potential.”
Like Mr. Dodge, who says it’s better to increase investment rather than consumption, Minister Girard now feels it’s now up to the Trudeau government to defend its tax move. Let me read the quote:
“They have motivations that I do not share,” he said. “What matters to us is the best interests of Quebec,” the minister concluded.
This statement from Minister Girard is a good segue into reflecting on Bill C-78’s political opportunism and electioneering.
Before I wrap up, I want to come back to a point that I made at the start of my speech. I told you that I wouldn’t be talking about the federal government’s lack of consultation with the provinces. Yesterday, however, something happened that gave me an opportunity to broadly highlight this lack of consultation.
Yesterday, December 9, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released his report on Bill C-78, which said that if the provinces do not waive the compensation required under their agreements with the federal government, this could end up costing up to $2.8 billion.
Immediately after the release of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report, a spokesperson for the federal Minister of Finance encouraged all provinces to waive their sales tax on the same goods and services, as follows:
“We hope all provinces will join us and provide their share of tax relief for their residents over the holidays, as Ontario, P.E.I., and Newfoundland and Labrador have done. This tax break will help all Canadians in every province,” said Katherine Cuplinskas in a statement.
The government is living on hope. Had it done things right and negotiated with the provinces in advance, then it would not have to be begging for the provincial governments’ cooperation just days before the measure is set to be implemented. That is definitely not a smart way to manage the public purse or to respect the harmonization agreement that requires the federal government to consult the provinces before implementing this kind of change. Finally, in closing, I want to once again quote Professor Charlebois, who said the following:
In closing, the temporary suspension of the GST is a costly, ineffective, ill-advised measure that could create additional inflationary pressures while making life more difficult for retailers. If Ottawa really wants to help consumers, it needs to come up with more consistent long-term solutions.
It would be unfortunate if senators did not take into account the detailed and conscientious work of the Finance Committee, which gave Canadians, including experts, the chance to express themselves.
Honourable senators, I just gave you 32 good reasons to vote against this improvised, poorly targeted, deeply flawed bill, which is, quite frankly, just a ploy to win votes.
I know that some senators want to abstain. Honourable senators, we each represent roughly 400,000 to 450,000 people. These people are not asking us to abstain, and we were not appointed to the Senate to abstain. We were appointed to take positions, positions that are sometimes hard, but positions nonetheless.
I invite you to take a position for the 450,000 citizens you represent and vote against this bill.
Would you take a question, Senator Carignan?
Yes, of course.
Thank you. Senator Carignan, you and our colleagues might recall that the Conservative Party announced a similar policy proposal in 2021. At the time, then-leader Erin O’Toole stated:
December is going to be the end of a very difficult year for Canada, and we think Canadian families deserve a break.
Therefore, can you elaborate on what has changed since 2021? As someone who has served as Leader of the Government in the Senate, do you believe this chamber ought to give serious deference to the other place when it comes to matters of taxation policy?
You quoted an individual who was defeated in an election for making this type of proposal. He is no longer the leader of our party.
Senator, I invite you to answer my question perhaps a bit more fulsomely. This was the position of the Conservative Party. You are a member of that party.
Do you not agree, senator, that this unelected chamber, which is constitutionally prohibited from passing money bills or imposing money costs as a matter of our Constitution, should show some deference to the elected house and the government of that house when it proposes tax policy measures?
Senator, if we were constitutionally prohibited from voting against the bill, we would not be seized with it now. We are seized with it, though, because we do have a constitutional role and we do have the ability to vote for or against this bill.
Honourable senators, I also rise to speak to Bill C-78, An Act respecting temporary cost of living relief (affordability). Before I go into my remarks, I just wanted to quote from Ivan Morgan. Ivan Morgan used to be a handler for our Prime Minister. And I want to read what Ivan Morgan has to say:
What a mess. Hopefully you aren’t paying attention. Hopefully you are focused on more important things such as Christmas, family and the like.
I’m referring to politics in Ottawa. Strange goings on.
I ask this question only half in jest: Is our Prime Minister stupid? Like actually not smart? We have had many intelligent, accomplished prime ministers in the past. I am starting to wonder about our latest one. He’s said and done some spectacularly stupid stuff over the past several weeks.
He was in Brazil recently to schmooze with rich and powerful people who worry about climate change. In an interview he basically said saving the planet is more important than feeding and housing your family. . . .
Next, he announces he is going to give people back some of their own money, paying working Canadians $250. But not seniors. They aren’t getting a cheque.
His opponents think he is evil. I wonder if he’s just stupid.
Even if he is stupid, where are his handlers, his advisors, those hired to protect him from himself? (I used to be one.) Is there some sort of movement inside his circle to let people finally see him for who he is? Hang him out to dry, so to speak? . . .
And when planning to bribe the electorate with its own money, might it not be politically prudent to include seniors?
I was recently catapulted into official seniordom and believe me government pensions are pretty miserable. Some people may be living high on the hog, but I also know folks eating cat food in the dark.
I’ll leave it there. He has much more to say, and I would encourage you all to avail yourself of that and read what else Ivan Morgan has to say about our Prime Minister.
Colleagues, the sponsor has already explained that this legislation will remove the GST or HST from a range of items for a period of two months. And, according to the Prime Minister, this means that “for two months, Canadians are going to get a real break on everything they do.” Colleagues, for two months, he says, we are going to get a break on everything we do.
But before you get too excited, I would like to remind you once again that this is the same Prime Minister under whom Canadians have seen the cost of living skyrocket. Food prices have risen 37% faster in Canada than in the United States. The cost of housing has doubled. Our GDP per capita is smaller than it was when he took office. We have the highest level of household debt to disposable income in the G7. Our health care system is in crisis, and our economy is struggling.
A recently released national report card of Campaign 2000 stated that between 2021 and 2022, child poverty jumped by 2.5 percentage points. This is the largest annual increase in child poverty on record. In the last two years, Canada saw 358,520 more children living in poverty than during the height of the pandemic in 2020. What a travesty, colleagues.
This means that across Canada today nearly 1 in 5 children are living in poverty, representing nearly 1.4 million children. Nowhere in Canada was spared. Child poverty increased in every single province and territory. The highest rate was seen in Nunavut, where child poverty increased by 6%.
Ontario also saw a spike of 3.5%. The percentage of children living in food-insecure households rose in 2023 from 24.3% to 28.5% — all under this Prime Minister, about whom Ivan Morgan is asking whether he is stupid.
Worse still, the depth of poverty for families, which means the gap between the poverty line and the median income of low-income families, increased by 42% from 2015. As a result of this, families that were $10,050 below the poverty line in 2015 are now $14,276 below the poverty line.
After nine years of Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh, there are now 2 million people lined up at food banks every month. In Ontario alone food banks had to handle 7.7 million visits in the last year, from over 1 million residents. This means there are more Ontarians accessing food banks than the entire population of Nova Scotia. One in four Canadians have started skipping meals. There are tent cities all across the country, and there are crime, chaos, drugs and disorder all over our communities. But no worries, colleagues, the Prime Minister has a plan. He is going to borrow $1.6 billion on behalf of Canadians and use it to give us all “a real break” on everything we do — our own money.
But don’t forget that the Prime Minister made the decision to give away not only $1.6 billion of federal tax money but also another $1.1 billion of provincial tax revenue. This means that the actual cost is going to ring in around $2.7 billion, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. And since there is zero plan in sight to repay that $2.7 billion, it will begin racking up interest at an approximate rate of $1 billion every 10 years until it is paid back.
Now, in return, Canadians will enjoy a few cents off a range of items for 63 days. From December 14, 2024, until February 15, 2025, the GST/HST will come off of “groceries and holiday essentials.” By “groceries,” the Prime Minister does not mean the usual vegetables, meat, grains, dairy products that Canadians typically buy to fill their cupboards, because those are already exempt. No, no, he means things like beer, wine, candies, potato chips, corn chips, cheese puffs, potato sticks, popcorn, snack mixtures, fruit bars, frozen yoghurt, doughnuts, brownies, prepared platters of food and more. Who drew up that list? What kind of an idiot?
The so-called holiday essentials are not things like prescription medicines, household cleaning supplies, cellphone service, internet bills, first aid supplies, furnace filters, snow tires, car repairs, electricity bills or gas for your car. They are things, however, like puzzles and board games, video game consoles or books — as long as it is not a colouring book, a cut-out book, a directory, an owner’s manual or a magazine that is not purchased through a subscription.
It’s essentials like toys that imitate another item, printed newspapers but not digital ones, printed books but not e-books, and let’s not forget kids’ stretchy socks, ties, belts, suspenders and hosiery.
Colleagues, I either need to cry or laugh. I’m not sure what this is, but how can anybody in this chamber — Senator Gignac — say, “No matter how silly this bill is, I will vote for it.” Then we hear the government leader say because the Leader of the Opposition who lost an election supported this, that’s a good enough reason for us to support this idiocy.
Colleagues, we can vote against this stupidity, and that’s what it is. This man is bankrupting us. He’s bankrupting your grandchildren, and we’re letting him get away with it. He has a lot of money. This is no problem for him. This was written on the back of a napkin, colleagues. This man sat down after he had one too many beers, and he wrote this on the back of a napkin.
Somebody wrote it for him.
Somebody wrote it for him. According to Minister Freeland — and she’s back and forth on this too — this is tremendous news for those who are lining up at the food bank, are struggling to make their mortgage payments or are already living in homeless encampments. How is this news for people living in homeless encampments?
After all, as she noted, things are much better than they appear and there is merely a disconnect between recent good news on inflation and interest rates and how Canadians are feeling about the economy. She is confident that this legislation will give them a boost out of the “vibecession” in which we all feel ourselves stuck.
Colleagues, if you’re not convinced, let me give you some reassurance. I did the math. The $2.7 billion works out to $1.05 a day for every single Canadian for 63 days straight. That’s right, the “vibecession” is almost over, colleagues — hallelujah — because for nine weeks the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance are going to let you and me hold on to an additional $7.32 of our own money. This, in turn, is going to stimulate consumer spending and yank us all out of the doldrums.
There’s just one little wrinkle I should note, however. This $1.05 of daily savings per person will not be experienced evenly — not across the board. Since you have to spend money in order to save money, those who have more disposable income and spend the most will be the ones who save the most. In spite of the exaggerated talking points and enthusiastic sound bites, those who benefit the most from this plan are the rich — Justin Trudeau — and those who do not benefit at all are the poorest people, the homeless people eating from food banks. They receive nothing.
In 2022, when the government wanted to put money back into the pockets of Canadians, it chose to issue a special top-up payment under the Goods and Services Tax Credit implemented through Bill C-30. That legislation doubled the GST credit for six months.
Aside from the fact that we have repeatedly seen how this Liberal government uses fiscal policy to work against the Bank of Canada’s efforts on monetary policy, at least that measure was more efficient at putting the money into the hands of those who needed it most. In addition to knowing exactly where the cash would end up, this approach would have saved retailers the time and expense of reprogramming their point-of-sale machines on December 14 and then again on February 15. The Canada Revenue Agency could have just made the necessary changes to their programming, and the automatic deposits would have shown up in bank accounts across the country.
Instead, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, small firms in sectors that will be required to make changes to accommodate the temporary tax holiday report many concerns. Of those who reported, 75% say it will be costly and complicated to implement the holiday tax trick. Small firms report a median of $1,000 in additional costs to reprogram their point-of-sale systems to remove and then reinstate the tax, and 65% say that there is not enough time to implement the change. In addition, 71% say that big businesses and online giants will have an upper hand in benefiting from the holiday, and 68% say that it will be difficult to determine which items are temporarily tax exempt. Of retailers of goods subject to the holiday, 66% believe that consumers will delay purchases, and 54% believe consumers will return products to repurchase during the holiday period.
Colleagues, this is an absolute joke. We have a finance minister who said last May, “. . . it would be irresponsible and unfair to pass on more debt to the next generations . . . .” She then proceeded to pass a budget that promised to add $395.6 billion more by 2027-28 to the total amount of debt held federally. Then yesterday she doubled down. Listen to this: She’s going to announce at least a $40 billion deficit — the Parliamentary Budget Officer says it’s $46 billion; other sources say it’s $62 billion — on Monday. She says, “Our government is focused on delivering fairness for every generation. . . . And we are doing this in a fiscally responsible way.”
Tell me what part of that is fiscally responsible. Colleagues, I have been told here in the past that I cannot call somebody a liar; that it is not parliamentary language. I do not know how you can call anybody something other than a liar when they are clearly lying to Canadians. The Minister of Finance is a liar and the Prime Minister is a liar; there is simply no other way to express it. The regrettable truth is that the only accurate way to describe unparliamentary behaviour is to use unparliamentary language.
As I said before, common-sense Conservatives will vote against —
Senator Gold, please.
With respect to my colleague, if I understood his words correctly, he acknowledged that he was using unparliamentary language because he disagrees with a policy choice that the Prime Minister made and is currently before this house. I would ask the senator to reconsider his words or ask you to take under advisement the breach of our Rules with regard to using unparliamentary language in this chamber.
Senator Gold, thank you for your comments.
I will read rule 6-13(1) on unparliamentary language: “All personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order.”
As I said before, common-sense Conservatives will vote against this irresponsible, inflationary two-month tax trick, and I encourage you all to do the same, colleagues.
This Liberal-NDP government needs to be defeated and replaced with a common-sense Conservative government, under the very able leadership of Pierre Poilievre, as quickly as possible.
Canadians deserve better than Band-Aid solutions and empty promises. They deserve a government that understands their struggles and has the courage to make fundamental changes to restore Canadian prosperity.
Colleagues, I regret having to give such a despairing message at Christmastime; I really do. I didn’t come up with this tax trick.
There are no Canadians who voted to have this government in place: a combination of the NDP and Liberals. Rather, 6 million Canadians voted for Conservatives more than for any other party. Be that as it may, nobody voted for this coalition. Nobody voted for Jagmeet Singh to be the Prime Minister of Canada.
This is what this government has left us with. For too many families, this is going to be a very difficult Christmas — probably the most difficult Christmas in their lifetime.
After my taxing language and after my comments, strange as it may seem, I want to take a moment and bring a little levity into this situation that we, as Canadians, find ourselves in because we will either cry or we will laugh.
Let me close my speech with a poem:
‘Twas two weeks before Christmas, and all through the land,
The cost of essentials was way out of hand.
The families were nestled in hopes of relief,
But cost of their groceries still caused them much grief.
Then PM Trudeau sat upright in his bed,
“A measly tax cut that will make them forget!”
But housing had doubled, food prices had soared,
And budgets, once balanced, could stretch out no more.
The tax break, though touted, seemed fleeting and small,
For a few chips and doughnuts was no help at all.
“Cheetos and Cheezies!” the leaders proclaimed.
But medicine and gas? They’re not part of the game.
When out on the streets, there arose such a clatter,
It was folks seeking warmth — survival did matter.
Away to the shelters, they flew like a flash,
But found only long lines and systems all trashed.
And what to their wondering eyes did appear?
A bookkeeping burden, confusion severe.
With small businesses groaning, their costs piled high,
To alter the taxes on goods they supply.
“Now puzzles! Now board games! Now stretchy kids’ socks!
On books but not e-books, on belts and on frocks!
Subtract and re-add it! This holiday cheer
Will cost firms a fortune to juggle this year!”
The savings, though trumpeted, barely would show,
Sixty-three cents a day in the holiday glow.
“Five dollars a week for each person’s plight
Will do nothing to help us through this winter’s night.”
And so, with a sigh, the plan rolled ahead,
While households still struggled to budget their bread.
Yet hope springs anew, for change is in sight,
To steer us from darkness and into the light.
This Liberal-NDP pact must now end,
For Canadians yearn for some real common sense.
Under Poilievre’s leadership, hope glimmers bright
For days of good fortune instead of dark night.
No more Band-Aid fixes, no more holiday cheer,
We need real solutions, both bold and sincere.
Let Trudeau return to the classroom’s embrace,
And leave grown-ups to govern, to lead and replace.
So rise, fellow citizens, and seize this great fight —
For Canada deserves better. Merry Christmas, good night!
Would Senator Plett take a question?
Certainly.
Senator Plett, thank you for sharing your views on what has become nothing more than a Liberal gimmick. In the case of this government, it has been nine years of gimmicks that have led us to historic debt.
We have a situation this year where the federal government is paying more in interest payments on the national debt than transfer payments to health care. Maybe you can tell us this: What are the repercussions to our health care system when that occurs, for example?
The second question I have is — and it is devastating to even ask this question; it is unbelievable when you think about it — in Canada right now, we’re seeing unemployment creep up, which is the end result of nine years of bad fiscal management. Unemployment amongst young people in Canada is now creeping up to 14% or 13.9%, which is catastrophic.
Tell us a little bit about the impact on — in what was once upon a time the G7 — the young generation of Canadians who are saddled with debt and who are desperately trying to find jobs in a marketplace where unemployment is not 5% or 6% but, for young people, it is 14%.
Thank you, Senator Housakos, and you are absolutely right.
First of all, regarding our health care system, again, we used to be the pride of the G7, certainly with health care. In every province, with the wait times we now have and the transfer payments, it is a complete gong show. It is a government that has lost its way.
When we look south of the border, even prior to their very positive election — just in case anyone wants to jump on me for this — things were going much better there than they were here. Certainly, they will continue, and they will do better yet.
We have a government that cannot keep up. We are now a joke across the G7. We are a joke to the president-elect when he is making comments about us being the fifty-first state, and we have a Prime Minister who is asleep at the switch and decides that giving us $5 apiece here at a cost of $3 billion — another $3 billion to $46 billion, so what?
Senator Housakos, the general impact is that my grandchildren as well as my great-grandchildren — and yours — are going to inherit a system where they will never know what existed, like you and I.
You and I, at least, remember some of the good times. They will never see that unless we have a very quick change in this government. Every day we have this government in power, it will make it that much worse for the next one.
Instead, we have comments like “Your leader somewhere supported something,” when that leader lost the confidence of his own caucus for the very reasons we are talking about.
That is what we have here with the leadership, both in the Senate as well as in the other place.
But at least we threw him out; they are keeping him.
Right. Exactly.
Would Senator Plett take another question?
Certainly.
Thank you, Senator Plett.
Thank you for outlining very clearly the reasons why you don’t support this bill. I have been thinking about your speech and many others this afternoon, and I was thinking about Senator Pate’s speech and her argument for a guaranteed livable income as one of the ways to address the hard-working poor, whom this bill does not address.
I would like to know, Senator Plett, do you support a guaranteed livable income?
In fairness, Senator Bernard, I think we are discussing a GST trick here not a guaranteed livable income.
Certainly, if we get to debating a guaranteed livable income, I will be more than happy to put my comments on the record, but right now, we are debating a tax trick. We are debating giving away $2 billion here over the next couple of days. If the $250 deal goes through in a couple of months from now, that is another $6 billion. The more we spend, the less money there will be for any kind of a guaranteed income for any of us.
Senator Plett, the question was “Do you support a guaranteed livable income?” not whether you would speak to it at a later date.
Like I said, when we start debating a guaranteed livable income, Senator Bernard, I will put my opinion on the record at that time. Right now, we are debating this tax trick, which has absolutely nothing to do with the guaranteed livable income.
Senator Plett, would you take another question?
Yes.
Like you, I’m not supportive of this bill. I see challenges that cause me to go against parliamentary tradition in a way that I do not take lightly.
I have to ask you a question I have been meaning to ask you for six-and-a-half years: Do you think that insulting people in this chamber and being aggressive in that manner actually helps win people over to your argument?
Let me answer that with a question, Senator Deacon. Do you think insulting me here gets me any closer to being fond of you?
I’m sorry. I did not think that I insulted you, sir.
I’m sorry. I didn’t insult you either. I spoke the truth about the Prime Minister.
When somebody, Senator Deacon, tells an outright lie — when it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. That is what I said.
I wish to repeat the rule pertaining to unparliamentary language, “6-13. (1) All personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order.”
