CONTENTS
Monday 15 December 1997
Tax Credits to Create Jobs Act, 1997, Bill 164, Mr Eves /
Loi de 1997 accordant des crédits d'impôt pour créer des emplois,
projet de loi 164, M. Eves
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
CHAIR / PRÉSIDENT
MR GARRY J. GUZZO (OTTAWA-RIDEAU PC)
VICE-CHAIR / VICE-PRÉSIDENT
MR WAYNE WETTLAUFER (KITCHENER PC)
MR TED ARNOTT (WELLINGTON PC)
MR JOHN R. BAIRD (NEPEAN PC)
MR JIM BROWN (SCARBOROUGH WEST / -OUEST PC)
MR GARRY J. GUZZO (OTTAWA-RIDEAU PC)
MR MONTE KWINTER (WILSON HEIGHTS L)
MR GERRY PHILLIPS (SCARBOROUGH-AGINCOURT L)
MR GILLES POULIOT (LAKE NIPIGON / LAC-NIPIGON ND)
MR E.J. DOUGLAS ROLLINS (QUINTE PC)
MR WAYNE WETTLAUFER (KITCHENER PC)
SUBSTITUTIONS / MEMBRES REMPLAÇANTS
MR BRUCE CROZIER (ESSEX SOUTH / -SUD L)
MR DWIGHT DUNCAN (WINDSOR-WALKERVILLE L)
MR BART MAVES (NIAGARA FALLS PC)
CLERK / GREFFIÈRE
MS ROSEMARIE SINGH
The committee met at 1902 in room 228.
TAX CREDITS TO CREATE JOBS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ACCORDANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT POUR CRÉER DES EMPLOIS
Bill 164, An Act to implement job creation measures and other measures contained in the 1997 budget and to make other amendments to statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance or relating to taxation matters / Projet de loi 164, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre des mesures de création d'emplois et d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1997 et à apporter d'autres modifications à des lois dont l'application relève du ministère des Finances ou qui traitent de questions fiscales.
The Chair (Mr Garry Guzzo): Could we come to order. Are you ready to proceed? Prepared to deal with the first section? Shall section 1 carry? Carried.
Shall section 2 carry? Carried.
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): On a point of order, Mr Chair: By way of courtesy, would the clerk extend the privilege of a spare copy of the bill? This is voluminous indeed. Do you intend to go clause by clause or is it your intent to expedite and to use whichever possible majority muscle you have in terms of pushing this thing through in what you would term, with respect, is a reasonable time? I was surprised for us to be departing from form, that all three parties were not asked to issue some preliminary comments vis-à-vis Bill 164 dealing with the intent, the spirit addressing the compendium and also the feeling of their respective positions on the bill, Mr Chairman, and I would have appreciated the time, the courtesy of course to do that on behalf of our party. I'm a little shell-shocked that the government used some tricks to get us here. We have to reciprocate, and I say this on behalf of the democratic process and on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
The Chair: Mr Pouliot, let me just say that your wish is my command, and if you'd like to make some preliminary remarks, I would be happy --
Mr Pouliot: I was going to broadly summarize --
The Chair: What I was going to say is I would be happy to allow you to do so at any time. I have carried section 3 and was about to move to the schedules. If you'd like to make them in reference to section 3 --
Mr Pouliot: I quote from the title of the bill, An Act to implement job creation measures and other measures contained in the 1997 budget and to make other amendments to statutes administered by the --
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I just would like to request your considered judgement on a point. The order of the House setting this bill, the way we're operating -- are we to proceed to votes or did it permit --
The Chair: Without debate, but in terms of the member's request for some preliminary comments, I feel compelled to allow a short introductory, notwithstanding we've voted on three sections.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): The official opposition would like that privilege as well.
The Chair: I would suggest three minutes per party. Very well. Proceed.
Mr Pouliot: Thank you for the courtesy and I thank the government member.
What is striking about Bill 164 is the method. This is an afterthought. Sure, our party will be fully supportive of any measure that will give the business community, especially the small business community, some encouragement by way of incentives, but what we see when we open Bill 164 -- well, it reminds me of Bre-X Gold. It looks very good on the outside, but once you scratch the surface you find out it tells quite a different story.
This is filled with amendments. These are errors, sins of omission. The government screwed up and now, in a desperate attempt to meet the deadline, the government comes back and asks the good people at finance to draft a bill. This smacks of incompetence. Some of those bills already had 40 amendments. They can shove them, they can bulldoze them all the time at the committee level. Somebody got a brainwave and they said, "We'll do it the omnibus way, and in order to coat it we will put in a very thin veneer of some incentives for the business community. When you open the package, you get all the amendments after."
I think this is a sinister plot. This is something that should be denounced. This is so veiled as an attempt, the transparency is real. I'm really disappointed in the competence of the government. This is, above all, what disappoints me the most. Those people pride themselves on being able to conduct good business, and yet I would have expected a lot more than I have here. I just voice, by way of conclusion, my great, great disappointment, and I thank you for giving me the time to share my sorrow with you.
Mr Duncan: Just briefly, I think it's somewhat appropriate that we're doing this today, given everything that's gone on with the downloading. This bill, in the view of the official opposition, continues the government's tradition of introducing comprehensive, omnibus legislation in the last days of a sitting and then ramming it through without any meaningful debate.
It's disguised in a couple of ways, not just in terms of the sugar coating that goes to some of the referenced things like the child care tax credit and some of the other things, but it's also disguised in the sense that it was originally advertised as being a technical budget bill when in fact there are a number of important political initiatives that are hidden at the end which are important to the government's property tax reforms and downloading agenda.
I'll remind you of what the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario said in their presentation to this committee about Bill 164: "The cumulative effect of Bills 106, 149, 160 and now Bill 164 is that we no longer have a municipal property tax system. We have a provincial tax system administered by municipalities. The province controls the education tax. It determines classes and subclasses of land. It allocates tax ratios and transition ratios and it now may determine what will go on in the tax notes."
1910
What's further troubling about that, coupled with the close to $600 million in additional property taxes that will be paid by all Ontario taxpayers as a result of this initiative in places like Kitchener, Niagara Falls, Ottawa and Wellington county, what's particularly troubling about it is that what you've done as well is taken out representation on taxes. The government, by regulation, will set the so-called education tax rate. One would have thought -- and perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Perhaps we should have expected that given the way they've dealt with this and other pieces of legislation.
This bill is in fact a substantive piece of political work that goes well beyond the sugar coating we see on the outside and represents yet another attempt by the government to take some pretty difficult political issues, such as, as was pointed out to us, the effect that this and four other pieces of legislation have had on the property tax system, and make them into law without any meaningful debate.
We submit that this bill ought to be defeated. You can do the good-news stuff coming out of the budget separately. Let's deal with the problems of higher property taxes which you've created in a different forum with a different piece of legislation. The official opposition believes this bill in its entirety is not in the best interests of the province and certainly not in the interests of property taxpayers in every corner in the province.
Mr Baird: The bill before us deals substantially with a lot of measures arising out of the Minister of Finance's budget of May of this year, a whole host of tax credits designed to create jobs in three most important areas: to assist small business, which is the economic engine of this province, where we've seen a good number of the jobs created; to support research and development in the high-technology community, where we've seen a substantial amount of our economic growth in recent years, and a substantial amount of the good news we've heard this year has been in the high-tech industries, and these tax credits hope to build on those successes; and finally a number of measures designed for youth employment, which is a substantial concern of all parties and of folks from all walks of life across the province.
It also deals with setting up the property assessment corporation, which is not a new or revolutionary idea. It's one that has at various times been supported by all three political parties. The Liberals of the day, the then member for Essex South, Mr Mancini, presented a much similar bill, Bill 156; followed up by the NDP in a policy paper they put out calling for much the same efforts. It's hardly a revolutionary idea; it's one that has had a substantial amount of public support across different parties and affiliations.
The Chair: Having heard the preliminary comments, we have carried sections 1, 2 and 3. I'll move to the schedules.
Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Just before we proceed, what is your interpretation of what we can do tonight? Are we allowed to have any discussion at all on any of these sections?
The Chair: The document that I read suggested that I "put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment."
Mr Pouliot: Point of order.
The Chair: I'd like to deal with Mr Duncan. Mr Duncan, did I answer your question?
Mr Duncan: So really we just have to vote? We can't say anything about these sections and we can't propose any amendments?
The Chair: That's my interpretation of what the document says.
Mr Pouliot: On the same point: I will not prolong this. I have no intention of reciting the memoirs of Pinochet or a day in the lives of Franco and Salazar, but I understand that when you have a committee it is our duty to debate, to scrutinize, to reinforce, to suggest, to amend. This is what parliamentarians do, is it not? Or if we are here as mere victims, that the gag order, the shackles, the handcuffs will supersede our democratic right, if I may be so bold, then what the heck is the need for the committee to convene if we don't have the right to debate?
Some of the backbenchers have been gagged. Others went for the feedbag. I can understand that, but that's their lot, that's their choice. I'm here to debate, and I suppose the official opposition is as well, each and every part of this bill to strengthen the bill. But now I'm at your mercy if I can't say a word. If with those people I say little or nothing at all, then my rights as a parliamentarian have been taken away from me; it's as simple as that. I'm really appalled and shocked, but I know that by unanimous consent you could have a good healthy debate -- it need not be long -- on Bill 164. Take the time that it takes. The people will be thankful that we didn't act in haste.
Mr Duncan: Just reviewing the resolution, the way I interpreted the resolution was that the questions necessary would be put at 9 o'clock, not at 7 o'clock, and therefore the resolution doesn't really address what we can do between 7 and 9 o'clock.
The Chair: Your motion is to adjourn till 9 o'clock and then we'll put the question?
Mr Duncan: No. I'm not making a motion; I'm posing a question to the Chair. It says we're authorized to meet at 7 o'clock today for the purpose of considering the bill, and then the next sentence reads, "That, at such time," which I presume to be 9 o'clock -- we're scheduled from 7 till 9, is that correct?
The Chair: Not to my knowledge. I don't know that we're scheduled any limitation. We can stay until 9 tomorrow morning.
Mr Duncan: Do we vote on each individual section or how do we conduct the voting?
Mr Pouliot: Can we ask that each section be read?
Mr Duncan: I think each section should be read.
The Chair: I have interpreted "That, at such time, the Chair shall put every question" -- "such time" refers to the 7 o'clock in the paragraph preceding -- "necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment." That's what I started to do, but I think I had unanimous consent to allow preliminary comments that were very, very helpful, I must say, but I now propose to call the sections, which I have, and proceed to the schedules.
Mr Pouliot: On a last point of order, if I may, Mr Chair: With respect, I don't always express myself, articulate what I mean, so please bear with me briefly. The three minutes that we were given, this was not supposed to be the proverbial last word. We weren't going to the guillotine. This was opening statements. Now I find myself in the inopportune position of asking you for a stay of execution. Now we're saying that all you're going to do is just bulldoze the 200 pages and we don't even have a say to question, we can't propose anything. Mobutu -- I take that back. This is the way things operate and that's it -- head in the basket, we're being guillotined. Do you think that's fair? I've been here 13 years and I'm really appalled and shocked. I know they would not and I know we would not have acted this way, for both opposition parties are true democrats.
I'm insisting that we debate this with the will of the people out there while there is still a chance for them to have a say through people like us. Is that asking for too much?
The Chair: Definitely not. I definitely agree with you, but I am bound by the majority of the House. As a matter of fact, there was no vote, and I think the reason there was no vote was that one party walked out and the other party didn't have enough people to force a vote on that resolution.
The dictate of the House -- and the House is supreme regardless of which party forms the government -- suggests that I call them item by item "at such time," referring to 7 pm. Having said that, I propose to call the schedules immediately following section 3.
Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Could we have each section read into the record please?
The Chair: With unanimous consent, by all means.
Mr Duncan: Why?
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to read each?
Mr Duncan: Can I pose a question to the Chair and to the clerk? Do the rules require unanimous consent to have them read into the record?
The Chair: Yes, I believe it would require unanimous consent. There's no requirement for the committee to do it.
Mr Duncan: Is that the clerk's position on this?
The Chair: One moment. I'll ask.
Mr Duncan: I asked the clerk and the Chair.
The Chair: The clerk has no ruling on it.
Mr Pouliot: May I move that we adjourn until tomorrow to clarify this matter?
The Chair: Moved by Mr Pouliot that we adjourn until tomorrow. At what time?
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): You can't do that anyway, Mr Chair.
Mr Baird: I would bet, Mr Chair, that motion would be out of order, given that the mission sent to us by the Legislative Assembly is quite clear to deal with this issue at 7 o'clock.
The Chair: It does appear to be in conflict with the direction of the House, which we all agreed was supreme.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I don't think there is any necessity to read the sections of the bill. The members have all had ample opportunity to read the bill in its entirety, and I believe that the members here know what the bill contains and that it would be totally irrelevant.
Mr Duncan: I move that we adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning for purposes of getting clarification on the rules with respect to reading the clauses into the record.
The Chair: Mr Duncan, I have indicated that in light of the direction of the resolution that the House has passed, the motion to adjourn is out of order.
Mr Duncan: The resolution of the House says nothing about motions in it at all.
The Chair: No, but it provides a direction that "the Chair shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment."
Mr Duncan: I submit that the motion I put is directly relevant to that and therefore ought to be considered by the committee.
Interjection: It's out of order.
Mr Duncan: How can it be out of order? The resolution doesn't say anything about motions.
The Chair: I have ruled that it's out of order. Do you wish to challenge the Chair? Thank you. What is your wish? Anything further? I'll proceed to call the vote on schedule A.
Shall schedule A carry? Carried.
Mr Pouliot: Mr Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote on each and every item and that the names be read into the record, please.
The Chair: Recorded vote on schedule A.
Ayes
Arnott, Baird, Maves, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Crozier, Duncan, Pouliot.
The Chair: Schedule A is carried.
Shall Schedule B carry?
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Chair: According to standing order 127(a), I would request a wait of up to 20 minutes before this vote is recorded.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Mr Chair, speaking to that point of order: I believe we were in the midst of a vote and it would be inappropriate for us to call for a recess.
The Chair: I put the question with regard to schedule B and we had been asked for a recorded vote. The recorded vote had not been taken. I think the motion for the 20-minute adjournment is in order at this point in time. Is it 20 minutes specifically you are requesting?
Mr Crozier: Yes, 20 minutes.
The Chair: The committee will resume at 7:45.
The committee recessed from 1925 to 1942.
The Chair: Gentlemen, can we come to order. I call the vote on schedule B. Shall schedule B carry? Recorded vote?
Mr Duncan: Yes.
Ayes
Baird, Maves, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Duncan, Pouliot.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall schedule C carry?
Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Chair: Under the same section of the standing orders as was cited in the last case, we request a 20-minute recess to discuss our vote.
Mr Baird: Labour-sponsored venture capital and you need to discuss the vote?
Mr Duncan: Yes.
The Chair: Until 8:05.
The committee recessed from 1943 to 2003.
The Chair: Come to order. Ready for the question? Shall schedule C carry?
Mr Duncan: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Arnott, Baird, Maves, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Duncan, Pouliot.
The Chair: Carried.
Mr Baird: I would move that we group schedules C to G inclusive, given that there are no amendments.
The Chair: There are no amendments, you're correct, because of the House dictate. But I believe in order to do that we need unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? No unanimous consent. Shall schedule D carry?
Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I request a 20-minute recess to review this in our caucus as per the standing order cited earlier.
The Chair: Until 8:25.
The committee recessed from 2005 to 2022.
The Chair: Can we come to order, please.
Shall schedule D carry?
Mr Duncan: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Arnott, Baird, Maves, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Duncan, Pouliot.
The Chair: Schedule D carries.
Shall schedule E carry?
Mr Duncan: Mr Chair, on a point of order: We request 20 minutes as per the section in the standing orders for our caucus to consider this section of the bill.
The Chair: Until 8:45.
Mr Arnott: Mr Chairman, on that point of order: Is the Liberal caucus actually meeting to discuss this issue?
Mr Duncan: Yes, absolutely.
The House recessed from 2023 to 2042.
The Chair: Are we ready for the question? Shall schedule E carry?
Ayes
Baird, Maves, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Duncan.
The Chair: Carried.
Mr Maves: On a point of order, Chair: As there are no amendments in the rest of the schedules, could we get unanimous consent to move them all in one motion at this point?
The Chair: Unanimous consent? No.
Shall schedule F carry?
Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I request 20 minutes as per the standing order that we cited earlier to review this schedule with my caucus colleagues.
Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We only have one of the three opposition members here. Are we required to have a majority of opposition members here? Because the other Liberal members and the NDP member are not here any longer.
The Chair: I don't believe so. Until 9:05.
The House recessed from 2044 to 2101.
The Chair: Shall schedule F carry?
Mr Duncan: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Arnott, Baird, Maves, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Duncan.
The Chair: Schedule F carries.
Shall schedule G carry?
Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'd like to ask for a five-minute recess.
The Chair: Back at 9:10.
Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Pursuant to the positions recited earlier in the standing orders, we request 20 minutes. We can wait until the five minutes are up if you like, but we request 20 minutes to caucus this schedule.
Mr Baird: I think mine precedes his.
The Chair: It's a five-minute recess. We'll be back at 9:10.
The committee recessed from 2103 to 2108.
The Chair: Come to order.
Mr Duncan: Point of order.
The Chair: I can't take a point of order now.
Mr Duncan: My understanding was that the question had been put and that's why you recognized the member for Nepean.
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Duncan: Point of order: I request a further 15-minute delay under section 127(a) of the standing orders in committees for further consideration of this schedule of the bill.
The Chair: I can't consider a second after I've granted one.
Mr Duncan: Point of order.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Under the edict of the House, I must call the vote --
Mr Duncan: I challenge the Chair.
The Chair: The Chair has been challenged. Shall the Chair be sustained? All those in favour?
Mr Duncan: Recorded vote.
The Chair: I must call the vote first of all on schedule G. Shall schedule G carry? All those in favour?
Mr Duncan: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Arnott, Baird, Maves, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Duncan.
The Chair: Schedule G carries.
The Chair is challenged. The question is, shall this Chair be sustained? Do you want a recorded vote?
Mr Duncan: Yes.
Ayes
Arnott, Baird, Maves, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Duncan.
The Chair: The Chair is sustained.
Shall the title carry?
Mr Duncan: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Arnott, Baird, Maves, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Duncan.
The Chair: The title carries.
Shall the bill carry?
Mr Duncan: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Arnott, Baird, Maves, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Duncan.
The Chair: The bill carries.
Shall I report the bill to the House?
Mr Duncan: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Arnott, Baird, Maves, Rollins, Wettlaufer.
Nays
Duncan.
The Chair: Report the bill to the House.
The committee adjourned at 2111.