SoVote

Mar/21/22 12:14:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, here is the problem with the approach of the Conservatives on this and a number of matters: If we were to have a tax holiday on the GST or on the carbon tax, nothing would prevent those very same companies from increasing costs even more. They would say there is a savings that people are enjoying, so let us increase the rates even more. That is the inherent problem with the Conservatives' approach. They think that somehow without government intervention, large, wealthy corporations are going to lower costs or allow people to earn a decent living. They are not. That is why we have to fight. That is why governments exist: to prevent that exploitation. What we are proposing is to get at the heart of the matter. Let us tax the excess profits and reinvest that back into people, which is something we have done in the last. Profiteering happened in the world wars, and Canada, among other nations, decided that we needed to put in a profiteering tax to stop it and to invest in people. That is exactly what we are proposing.

187 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/21/22 12:15:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the banks continue to post profits, and their executives are rolling in money while families are struggling to access or purchase housing. Major corporations also keep making profits while small businesses are suffering. The oil companies are raking in the dough while everyone is paying more for oil and gas. I am therefore in favour of a 3% surtax on those referred to in the motion as the “super‑rich”. I do want to point out, though, that tax havens represent another anomaly. The government is totally complacent with respect to tax evasion. Is it right to take that attitude?

105 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh

Mar/21/22 12:16:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is not right at all, and I am grateful to my colleague for his comments and support. Tax havens pose a major challenge because the ultrarich are hiding their money and not paying their fair share. We definitely need to resolve that problem. Today, our motion proposes to address the growing inequality in our society by imposing a 3% surtax on major corporations. Doing so will make it possible to restore justice and equality and to reinvest the money to meet Canadians' needs. We believe that this is a necessary measure.

94 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Mar/21/22 12:17:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be back in the chamber and speaking to an NDP motion. There is no question. We do not have to go far or talk to many people to realize just what a challenging time it is for so many Canadians, for so many reasons. I think one of the things that compounds that sense of frustration, anxiety and fear that people are feeling as their household budgets tighten is the contradictory messages that they are hearing about why that is happening and what could be done about it. If we listen to the government some days, when it suits their purposes, it tells us that the economy is doing great, that it has rebounded, that we are past the problems of COVID, that we have excellent job numbers and good growth, and that money is flowing in and things are good. At other times, the government gives a bit more of a realistic assessment, if it is in excuse-making mode. This is hard for Canadians who are struggling so much in their households and at the grocery store, as our leader was just saying, putting things back on the shelf that their kids would be excited to eat or that would be a normal part of their family cook night. It is frustrating to hear that things are going well, that things are back to normal, because that is certainly not the experience that people are living at the pumps, at the grocery store and around their kitchen tables. It is incumbent on us, as public policy-makers, to try to find a path through those contradictory messages to something concrete that can be done. For sure, there is a lot going on in the world right now, whether it is the continuing economic fallout of COVID and what that means for supply chains, or what climate change means for supply chains and is going to continue to mean for supply chains going into the future. There is what is happening in Ukraine right now, which of course has dramatically increased the price of gas at the pumps. There are all sorts of things happening that are hard to control, not just for individual Canadians, to be sure, but even for governments. That makes it that much more important for governments to act on the things it can do something about. An important part of the story that we do not hear enough of, although we heard a little of it from the Parliamentary Budget Officer at the end of last year, and part of the reason why Canadians can be living such a difficult financial experience at home and in the personal experience of their families, their loved ones, their friends and their neighbours, in the midst of this apparently good economic news, lies in the fact that more and more of the wealth that is being created is going into fewer and fewer hands. If we are just talking about the economy in general, if we are talking about GDP, if we are talking about how much money is being produced in the Canadian economy, if we are talking about the value of the exports that are leaving Canada, then we can hear good news. That is why, in corporate boardrooms and in the boardrooms of banks, they are celebrating. They hear that good news and they do not feel the pinch, because they are part of that 1% that is getting not only a good chunk of that but a bigger and bigger proportional piece of that pie. As the pie grows, not only is their piece increasing relative to the size of the pie but the amount of the pie they get is also increasing. That is why we can hear about good news for the economy and big economic growth and all these things that, normally, Canadians would expect to mean that life would be a little better for them, in the midst of so many stories of hardship, people worried about losing their homes and, in fact, more people than ever losing their homes. Homelessness is going up in Canada since the pandemic. The cost of housing is getting ridiculous. It was already ridiculous and growing astronomically before the pandemic, and it has only gotten worse. Housing prices have almost doubled in the last two years. I apologize if I do not have that stat exactly right, but the fact that the number is even what would occur to someone who has been hearing these numbers day in and day out as likely close to the number is a sign of how bad things have gotten. I wanted to put some of these thoughts on the record to help Canadians who might be listening understand how we could be presented with apparent good economic news again and again by the government, by certain economists and by large corporations in their presentations to shareholders, yet feel so helpless in the face of very difficult economic circumstances. I said earlier, and I will repeat, this makes it all the more important, because some of the things driving inflation are outside the control of government, that the government zero in on the things it can do something about. Wealth inequality is something governments can do something about. It is something governments, at one time in the post-war period, did something about. Over the last 30 or 40 years we have seen successive Liberal and Conservative governments undoing the good work that was done in the post-war period. That work made sure that, in a time of a sense of strong social bonds, when people went to fight for freedom and prosperity, they were owed a good life when they came back, and that their families, who sacrificed while they were away fighting, worked in factories producing munitions and supported the war effort in other ways, were owed a good life when they came back. That meant ensuring a small number of people at the top did not get to run away with all the wealth while everyone else suffered. That system, which was built when there was that strong sense of social solidarity, has been undermined now for a very long time. It is about time, if we are going to do anything about the very real pinch Canadians are feeling now, we tackle this problem of wealth inequality. The Liberals have made promises to that effect, various kinds over the years, but they have not acted on them in the way that they need to if they are really going to fix the problem. One of their most recent promises was to have a surtax on banks, which made extraordinary profits during the pandemic, not their normal extraordinary profits but additional profits on top of their normal extraordinary profits. As such, asking them to pay a little more on that additional extraordinary profit is not at all unreasonable. In fact, I think it is something we are morally required to do and we have so far failed in our duty to do that. The crisis in Ukraine has shown that the lack of financial transparency both in Canada and across the world is not benign. It is not even just about missing out on the opportunity to invest that extraordinary profit, which we might tax a portion of, back into programs, as we should, like dental care, pharmacare or supporting good public education. All of these are things we need to do, and I could go on with that list, but I only have so much time so I will not. We have also seen the way that actors on the international stage who control this amount of wealth benefit and are able to support people like Vladimir Putin by hiding his wealth around the world. That is how the concentration of wealth and power can become very malignant indeed. We should not wait until a dictator feels so empowered and emboldened, not just by what is going on in his own country but what is going on in the international world of finance, that they can go ahead and do what Putin has done in Ukraine and still feel confident that they are going to be able to enjoy their yachts and palaces and that their buddies are going to continue to travel the world with impunity. That is where the question of wealth inequality and what is going on in Ukraine and in other parts of the world come to get mixed together and show why it is important on an ongoing basis to make sure we are not encouraging the massive concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few people at the top. It is why I am proud that not only are we proposing what the Liberals proposed in the last election with a surtax on the profits of the banks, we are proposing it be expanded to other big corporate winners of the pandemic like big box stores and oil and gas companies that are now raking it in with prices that are really high at the pump. We have also included the demand for a public beneficial ownership registry, because that is what we need on two fronts. We need it to take on the likes of Vladimir Putin and his oligarch cronies who are hiding his wealth across the world, and we also need a public beneficial ownership registry in order to be able to properly record the wealth of the top 1%, so that they can be taxed to pay a fair share of the services we need to provide so that all can benefit. That is why this is such an important motion. I am looking forward to all members supporting it at the vote.

1641 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/21/22 12:27:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to address the issue of wealth inequity, something NDP members often talk about, I made reference to the issue of the 1% wealthiest being taxed as one of the first initiatives this government took. I have also in the past made reference to substantial increases to the GIS and government investments. Recently we made announcements across Canada of a national child care program for billions of dollars. That is, I would ultimately argue, a redistribution that is taking place. Therefore, there are different ways that we can tackle this problem. One of the other ways, and I would ask for the member's comments in regard to this issue, is that there are a lot of people who avoid paying taxes. Over the last five years, we have invested close to $1 billion in going after those people because there is a lot of wealth that is being avoided in taxes. Could the member provide his thoughts in terms of providing Revenue Canada with the proper tools to ensure that we are collecting fair taxes?

177 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/21/22 12:28:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is certainly right that there are people who are avoiding paying their fair share. It is something we have long said in the NDP we want to see the government make a priority. One of our frustrations is that, talking points aside, Canada stands alone in respect of the Panama papers and the Paradise papers in not having successfully prosecuted anyone, not a one. I hear what the member is saying. Yes, that sounds great. What we are looking for is a government that is actually going to make it happen. If the government members are sincere in actually wanting to do the things that the member says they want to do in tackling tax avoidance, yikes, because they sure as hell do not know how to get it done. I dare say the Liberals are not sincere because, of course, we cannot call anyone a liar in this House and I would not dream of doing it. However, something is not working because we have a government that, given the day, is professing to want to take on tax avoidance and tax evasion, yet, over six years in, it has not happened. Where is the missing link? That is what we are trying to figure out on this side of the House.

217 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Mar/21/22 12:29:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague said, and I understand one thing. I get the impression that the more proposals and measures we come up with to deal with a situation like inflation and the problems associated with growing vulnerability, the more the government puts its head in the sand. There are parties in the House that have a lot of proposals, and there is not much time left for the government to decide what it will put in its next budget. We are hearing a proposal regarding 3%. There is another proposal to use 1% of the government's budget to address the lack of housing renovations and new construction since 1995. Does my colleague agree that it is important that the government listen to and consider every proposal? I would also like my colleague to explain why the government almost always votes against such proposals.

150 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/21/22 12:30:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree. There are several ways to address this situation. What is beginning to alarm me is that this government has various paths it could take, but it will not choose any one of them. As a result, we are stuck with the status quo, which is not stable itself. We are seeing a trend where money and power are becoming concentrated in the hands of a smaller group of people. We really need to do something to reverse that trend. That means we need to change the status quo, if not through this proposal, which I think is a good one, then through something else. The government has not demonstrated that it has its own plan. It does not seem prepared to implement other parties' plans either. However, we absolutely must implement a plan, not only for the coming year, but for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. I believe we have the opportunity here to lay the foundations for a truly equitable economy, but we need to step up now.

176 words

Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Mar/21/22 12:32:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's debate. I actually believe today's motion is an important example of how parliamentarians can overcome partisan divisions to deliver positive results for Canadians on their highest priorities. I would like to thank my neighbour, the member for Burnaby South, for bringing this motion to the floor today, and the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his speech as well as for his work at the finance committee. One of the driving forces for me to re-enter politics in 2015 was to address issues surrounding social mobility. Building a fair tax system and creating an environment where all Canadians can succeed, no matter what their current financial circumstances are, is crucial for building not just a fair and equitable society but a society where anyone and everyone has a fair and equal chance at success. After all, a fair tax system is something that all Canadians want. Taxes help pay for the government programs and services that benefit our families and support our tremendous quality of life, which is regularly ranked among the highest in the world. They provide a safety net on which all Canadians can rely in times of crisis and they allow us to make strategic investments that can help our economy grow and create a better future for future generations. Funding these investments and providing these pathways to success require a firm commitment to ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and our government has always taken action based on this understanding. In fact, our first action as a government was to increase taxes on the top 1% in order to reduce them for Canada's middle class. We followed up with important measures to make Canada more affordable. These included reducing the cost of child care by 50% this year and eventually to $10 a day; introducing an unprecedented national housing strategy; increasing the OAS and GIS and indexing our most important benefits to the cost of inflation; reducing the qualifying retirement age in Canada from 67 to 65; and increasing student grants and moving to eliminate interest on student loans. We introduced an anti-poverty strategy that lifted 1.3 million Canadians out of poverty. Before the pandemic, this led Canada to achieve its lowest-ever poverty rate. Another key action we have recently taken to support fairness through the tax system is our proposed underused housing tax. The tax is on non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate that is considered to be vacant or underused. It was proposed to come into effect as of January 1 of this year. It will help ensure that foreign non-resident owners who simply use Canada as a place to passively store their wealth in housing pay their fair share. We are doing this because a home is, first and foremost, a place to live, and young Canadians who are starting to build their future are facing sky-high housing prices. The revenue from this tax will help to support our government's significant investments in housing affordability so that all Canadians can have a safe and affordable place to call home. We are not going to stop there. We are also taking action, along with our international partners, to ensure that corporations in all sectors, including major international digital corporations, pay their fair share of tax on the money they earn by doing business in markets such as Canada. Our government has always favoured a coordinated global solution to end the race to the bottom with regard to international corporate taxation. We want to ensure that multinational corporations pay an agreed-upon minimum level of tax wherever they do business, regardless of where they may be headquartered. We have made significant progress on this issue. Canada has worked with our partners at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in the G20, alongside 137 countries around the world that have agreed to a landmark two-pillar plan for international tax reform. This plan has been endorsed by all G20 finance ministers and leaders. We are working expeditiously with our international partners to bring this multilateral agreement into effect, but we are also taking action to ensure that Canadian interests are protected under any scenario. That is why we announced that as a backstop we would move ahead with legislation to impose a digital services tax as of 2024 if the treaty implementing the multilateral framework has not come into effect by that time. Canada is also taking action to ensure that large companies, typically multinationals, are not using excessive deductions on interest to unfairly reduce the taxes they pay in Canada. We are doing this because we do not want them to shift the tax burden onto hard-working Canadians. All other G7 countries have already taken action in line with the OECD's base erosion and profit-shifting project to eliminate excessive interest deductions by large companies. With budget 2021, we have taken action to join them. With this proposal, starting in 2023 the amount of interest that certain businesses can deduct would be limited to 40% of their earnings in the first year and 30% thereafter. We will look to provide relief to small businesses in other situations that do not represent significant tax-based erosion risk. We have already released draft legislation on this measure and are actively seeking stakeholder input. By aligning our tax system with our G7 partners, we expect federal revenues to increase by $5.3 billion over five years, starting in this fiscal year. Budget 2021 also took action to address so-called hybrid mismatch arrangements in which a multinational company can exploit the different treatment of certain business entities and financial instruments in Canada and another country to earn income that is not taxed in any jurisdiction. It also prevents the situation whereby deductions may be double-counted and apply to two different jurisdictions simultaneously, resulting in a double deduction. Budget 2021 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to eliminate the tax benefits of hybrid mismatch arrangements, with implementation starting in stages as of July 1 of this year. As I noted at the outset, our government's commitment to a fair tax system is ongoing. It started before COVID-19 struck and it will continue to be a cornerstone of our government's efforts as we move forward. This includes our commitment to ensuring that large profitable banks and insurers pay their fair share. It also includes our commitment to implementing a beneficial ownership registry that will increase corporate transparency. It also includes a revenue-neutral price on pollution that is a core part of Canada's plan to fight climate change and reach our net-zero targets, and it includes investing in the Canada Revenue Agency to combat aggressive tax planning and avoidance, ensuring everyone is paying their fair share. We will do this while continuing to focus on making life more affordable for Canada's middle class through measures like the Canada child benefit and Canada workers benefit, which have helped lift over one million Canadians and more than 435,000 children out of poverty, or like increasing the basic personal exemptions Canadians can earn before paying any federal income tax at all. Taken together, all of these measures that I touched on today show that our government is following through on its commitment to a fair tax system, and we will continue to follow through on this commitment as we move forward. I am pleased that with today's motion for debate, we will have the support of the hon. member for Burnaby South and his colleagues as we do so. After all, a fair tax that gives everyone a fair and equitable chance at success is something that all Canadians can support.

1309 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Mar/21/22 12:40:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by letting everyone know that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I intend on strongly supporting this motion for many of the reasons we have heard this afternoon already. We recognize that this encourages the government to do what it already said it intended to do. It is very constructive in that way and it goes further to point toward ways that we can not only address wealth inequality but do so in a way that actually strengthens our social safety net at the same time. The member for Burnaby North—Seymour mentioned the underused housing tax in his speech. I and others in this place have raised that issue also, recognizing that the cost of housing in Kitchener, for example, has gone up almost 34% in the last year alone. There are some sizable exemptions to what the government has proposed. Could he provide his personal opinion on going further and maybe reducing the exemptions so that Canadians and corporations too would be able to contribute to ensure that we remove this kind of opportunity for folks to speculate on homes in place of living in them?

198 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Beech

Mar/21/22 12:41:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for this very important question and for his and his party's commitment to fighting wealth inequality. With regard to going further on measures that make housing more affordable, absolutely our government is committed to that. Not only have we introduced a $72-billion national housing strategy and not only are we introducing the measure we are discussing, and I understand that the member wants us to go further, but we also made dozens of significant commitments in the last election that focused on three broad categories. The first is to increase supply. The second is to focus on housing as a place to live as opposed to an investment vehicle. The third is to find further pathways for new homeowners, first-time homeowners, to find their way into the market so they can find an affordable place to live. We are going to move on all those measures, and I look forward to working with that member to do more when it comes to housing and affordability generally.

178 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

Mar/21/22 12:42:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion put forward by my colleagues and the member for Burnaby South. Before I begin, I would like to mention I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. I was very encouraged when I heard about this motion today and that we were going to talk about a public beneficial ownership registry, which is badly needed in this country. However, upon closer inspection, I see parts of this motion that make it difficult for me to support it. I would like to outline a few of those areas, but I would first like to return to the important measure of the public beneficial ownership registry. The motion reads that a “proposed...surtax on banks and insurance companies...be expanded to profitable big oil companies and big-box stores” and “to re-invest the billions of dollars recouped from these measures to help...with the cost-of-living crisis”. First, industry-specific tax policy that targets particular industries is generally a very poor idea. Instead, the government should set the tax rate it wants to apply to companies of all industries appropriately. Second, tax hikes typically bring in less government revenue than was expected when they were proposed. We recall that in 2016 the newly elected government increased the top marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Canadians, but government revenues were about one-third of what were projected because wealthy Canadians fled Canada with their assets and declared their income in other countries. Third, industry-specific tax policy will decrease investment in these industries at a time when capital flows and investments in this country are at record lows. Capital flows freely across borders and in particular within the financial services sector. It would be very easy for companies to relocate operations or shift profits outside of Canada. Additional taxes imposed on these industries will have to come from somewhere. Corporations could reduce dividends that often go to retirees and pension plans across Canada, and many Canadians have investments in these companies. Companies will cut back on hiring plans, perhaps putting jobs at risk. They will potentially cut back on social services and community social responsibility programs that have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into communities right across this country. The money will have to come from somewhere. I have to ask the question: Why does the NDP believe that giving the government more money will solve the affordability crisis? If we want to talk about affordability, I propose that the best thing we could do is have an honest conversation about how to increase competition, which will lower prices for Canadian consumers. We should be talking about increasing competition across all major sectors of this country that have been protected for too long, such as financial services, airlines and other federally regulated industries, including telecom. Just a few months ago, one of the large financial institutions in the United States reduced its ATM and overdraft fees. I believe this is a reflection of a much more intense competition in the market, whereby companies that keep prices high on consumers are punished, and quite rightly so. Oligopolies have less incentive to lower prices for consumers in times of inflation and have an easier ability to raise their prices. Therefore, the answer is not for government to take away those profits, but for consumers to take away those profits through lower prices. We can do that through a radical reshaping of competition policy across these key sectors. For too long we have shielded and protected these industries from true competition. The result has been increased prices for consumers. As we approach the next Bank Act review, I believe all options should be on the table to figure out how we can increase competition and keep prices low for consumers. This includes discussing the widely held rule of allowing foreign competition in our key industries, significantly reducing the regulatory burden and allowing for easier adoption of financial technologies to vastly reduce the cost of serving customers. Having businesses that have to compete and give better deals to consumer is the most efficient way to ensure we tackle the cost of living crisis. Growing the size of government revenues is not the path to success. There was discussion in the motion about wealth inequality. It is hard to discuss wealth inequality without acknowledging where some of the responsibility lies. The Bank of Canada has pursued radical, artificial low-interest rate policies for more than a decade. It has caused asset price inflation. Those who own assets like homes have seen significant increases in wealth. In fact, the Bank of Canada is not alone. Most central banks across the developed world have all contributed to significantly worsening wealth inequality. We also know that the decision by our central bank to ignore inflationary pressures that started one year ago was a deliberate policy choice by the Bank of Canada that risked doing harm to society's most vulnerable. Less than one year ago, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said in a speech: Inequality has long been a concern of the Bank of Canada. Our focus on inflation control has always recognized that inflation is particularly tough for poorer Canadians and for those on fixed incomes because they are most affected when the purchasing power of cash declines. Years of low and stable inflation haven’t made us complacent about the potential threat these groups face. We also know that the most vulnerable employees are hit the hardest by the boom and bust economic cycles that come with high and variable inflation. Keeping inflation low, stable and predictable promotes a stronger and more stable economy, with greater opportunities for everyone. I am wondering where the central bank is today. For over one year, we have ignored the risk of higher inflation. Who benefits in times of inflation? The federal government has seen record revenue increases because it taxes nominal GDP. The oil price increases have also inflated the government's revenues and the federal government's response is that gas prices have not gone up high enough, so it wants to increase them even more, by almost 3¢ a litre, which would increase government revenues commensurately. I would like to turn to the public beneficial registry, the part of the opposition motion I wholeheartedly support. As I previously mentioned, I was very pleased to hear this motion would include the public beneficial registry. There is widespread support for this move from all parties in the House. The motion would have a far greater chance of passing had it been restricted to the public beneficial registry. I became interested in money laundering and white-collar crime when I worked for the previous minister of finance Jim Flaherty on his cause to implement a national securities regulatory framework in Canada, in part to make it easier for authorities to secure convictions against white-collar criminals. If we were just to review conviction statistics, we would assume that Canada has very little, if any, white-collar crime. Our prosecution and conviction rates are not nearly what they should be. We have some bright lights, of course. FINTRAC is lauded as a world leader in terms of identifying suspicious transactions, but somewhere in between the 13 federal agencies responsible for money laundering, we fail to live up to acceptable standards when it comes to prosecutions and convictions. Our system is broken and experts are saying the public beneficial registry is needed. Transparency International and Publish What You Pay have been doing lots of work where the government, quite frankly, has been negligent. Indeed, the government has committed to bringing forth this registry but not until 2025. With events like Ukraine and a focus on financial sanctions, it is even more important to speed up implementation well before 2025. We all know where we want to go and we must do it sooner. The challenge is that the longer we wait to take this step, it puts subsequent steps later and delays other actions we can take, including unexplained wealth inquiries, which could allow authorities to investigate suspicious new-found wealth, and other badly needed measures. The public beneficial ownership registry is non-partisan. It is unfortunate that we could not have just focused on that issue today, but I recognize the motion put forward does not focus on that one issue.

1423 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/21/22 12:52:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to the entire speech by my colleague across the way and he seemed to focus on what I believe to be a misconception that has been continually floated around by Conservatives since Reaganism. That is this idea that if taxes are increased on the wealthy, they are somehow going to migrate away to other locations that have lower taxes. It is a very well talked about idea and concept. However, there is very little data that supports that it happens in practicality. I am wondering if the member can cite any data, any study or any conclusive review that indicates that it actually happens. I am willing to admit I am wrong if I am missing something, but I have never been able to find that when I look for actual data to support that claim.

140 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

Mar/21/22 12:53:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, which allows me to point back to his own government's data. In 2016, we raised the top marginal rate on the highest income earners in Canada. What happened? The government told us that we were going to get about $3 billion in extra taxes. What did we get? We received less than $1 billion, which is a third of what we were expecting to get. In fact, we had a record number of tax filers leave the country after that was introduced. I refer the hon. member back to his own government's statistics on this matter.

111 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/21/22 12:54:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I was very intrigued as I listened to all his comments, and I was glad to hear that he supports the motion put forward by the member for Burnaby South. The NDP is proposing that, among other things, a certain percentage be taken of banks' and other businesses' excess profits, but one thing that worries me is what they plan to do with that money. They talk about redistributing it to help people deal with the skyrocketing cost of living these days, but how exactly will that be done? At the Bloc Québécois, we have been insisting for a long time that health transfers need to be increased. We feel this would be a good opportunity to restore and ensure the physical and mental well-being of Quebeckers and Canadians. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about what should be done with the money. How can we help Canadians and Quebeckers cope with the alarming rise in the cost of living?

179 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam Chambers

Mar/21/22 12:55:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to clarify, while I find some portions of the NDP motion acceptable, I do not think we can support the motion in its entirety as it is currently written. I do not believe that growing the size of government is going to address the cost-of-living crisis. My submission would be that we need to let consumers take these excess profits from companies in the form of lower prices. In fact, with respect to public transfers and what we would do with money should we have an excess amount of revenue, and by the way government revenues are increasing substantially during inflation, absolutely, we should be giving no-strings-attached additional money to provinces for health care transfers and other social programs. I think the provinces well understand how to best use that money to support their own jurisdictions. I would support my hon. colleague with that suggestion.

151 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/21/22 12:56:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just to follow up on my colleague's question, I think it is something Conservatives traditionally have always said, which is to give big business and the ultrarich the tax breaks and they will create the jobs. They believe in the trickle-down theories. I am wondering if my colleague could provide any sort of report or evidence that clearly shows that this is, in fact, the case, because that is not my understanding. Conservatives continue to espouse that and I do not think it is a fair contribution to the debate, unless they can substantiate their comments.

100 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

Mar/21/22 12:57:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question again. We look at the federal budget from 2017 and it talks about how much revenue was gained from the tax increase on the wealthiest Canadians. It was one-third of what the government projected, so it received far less revenue than it thought it would because people left. If we increase taxes on large businesses that can easily shift profits and operations overseas, we will find that they will leave this country and we will have less investment.

88 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC)

Mar/21/22 12:58:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this motion put forward by the NDP, the content of which borders on the ridiculous: It sounds like it was written by a 4th-grade student. We certainly agree that we are experiencing a cost of living crisis. There is no mistaking that. In fact, the Conservatives were the first to speak out against the skyrocketing prices Canadians have been and still are facing, whether it is the price of gasoline, groceries or other consumer goods. However, the NDP seems oblivious to what caused these price increases. In my opinion, the remedies it is proposing will only exacerbate the inflation we are currently seeing. It seems to think that everything is going to be magically solved with this 3% surtax on banks and insurance companies proposed by the Liberals. It wants to extend the surtax to the New Democratic Party's arch-enemies, the oil companies, and to big box stores. I do not know why it is targeting these two economic sectors in particular, since many other economic sectors could be taxed. The first sector they are targeting provides jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country. It makes a significant contribution to Canada's economic development and the social services funded by the huge tax dollars it already pays. I am talking about the oil sector, which fortunately meets a major share of Canada's and the United States' energy needs at a time of multiple conflicts around the world and in an era where alternatives to this energy source will take us years to access. We find the NDP's decision to target big box stores even more perplexing because they are kind of the saving grace of the middle and working classes. These people and their buying power depend on the impressive supply chains that deliver essential goods across Canada. I will not sing the praises of major chains because I am from a region where people have to do whatever they can to promote buying local. However, these chains are one option for the things we need to buy. Over the past two years, local markets have been hit hard by COVID‑19. That is why chambers of commerce have worked so hard to encourage buying local as a way to help our small businesses, which have had such a tough time, stay alive. The fact is that big corporate chains play an important role in everyday life by offering products that are as affordable as possible to a clientele that does not necessarily have the financial means or the time to visit small specialty shops. We are under no illusions. Merchants are very much affected by increases in the cost of living and supply chain challenges. CP Rail employees are on strike at this very moment, for goodness' sake. Once again, we are talking about a major hurdle that will further increase the cost of living. As we know very well, basic commodities like western Canadian wheat and barley will not be able to leave Canada, inevitably preventing them from getting to processors. Retail prices are not the only ones that have gone up. Wholesale prices have risen, too. Farmers are having to spend more money on soaring energy costs. Processors are being forced to increase wages to attract and retain staff. Goodness knows I can speak to this from my own personal experience with my business. Trucking companies are struggling with both a driver shortage as well as increases in the cost of fuel, which has risen by 30% in recent months. Inevitably, merchants also have to pay to get products in a competitive market like ours. It is not always easy to increase prices quickly, since consumers have fortunately learned to use coupons, now that everyone is forced to deal with the skyrocketing price of products in stores. Profit margins are not huge at these major chains, nor at our local stores, who have to recover their loss somewhere. Prices have also increased considerably at grocery stores. I went grocery shopping on the weekend. I could not get over how much the price of butter, milk or bacon has gone up in a year. It makes no sense. People are worried that these prices will continue to go up since all the other costs in the supply chain are going up as well. I just listed a host of factors that led to these price increases over the past year. Does the NDP truly believe that the big box stores will simply accept this new proposed tax and not pass it on to the consumer? It is absolutely ridiculous to think so. Make no mistake: If there is a government-proposed tax or surtax, even with the billion dollars or more in profits that those companies are making, they will pass it on to the consumer. There is no doubt about it. That is what will happen. At the end of the day, it will still be the consumer and every socioeconomic group who will be paying. Let me give an example. I live in La Pocatière, or, more specifically, Saint‑Roch‑des‑Aulnaies, which is an hour and fifteen minutes away from Quebec City and major chains like Costco and so on. What kind of compensation would I get with the surtax, compared to someone who lives in Lévis and is a two-minute walk from the major chain in question? That is what life is like in the regions. Longueuil, for example, is not a big region. My region covers 7,500 square kilometres. When I am travelling around my riding, it can take three hours to get from one end to the other. I do not cycle that. When I go shopping, I obviously try to shop as close to home as possible, but if I want to shop elsewhere, I have to pay for gas, travel and my time. That will obviously have an impact on my total costs. Why is the NDP not trying to address the root cause of these price increases? It must know that printing money to finance the Liberal government's astronomical deficits has devalued the Canadian dollar. It is sad to say, but the current government's poor management has weakened our petrodollars, which, in the past, increased along with the price of a barrel of oil. This is definitely not the case at present. Members will recall that in 2007 and 2011, under the Conservative government, the Canadian dollar was practically on par with the U.S. dollar, and even briefly pushed above it, in some cases. Not everyone was pleased, especially exporters, but it did at least give consumers some breathing room and let them take advantage of prices that were stable and even dropped for some imported goods, such as food items that we cannot grow because of our climate. This year, however, we find ourselves with the worst of both worlds: gas prices that continue to increase significantly and the purchasing power of our dollar that is decreasing across the board. We all know the results of the government's record over the past six years, which consists of financing deficits not just with borrowed money, but with printed money as well. Why does the NDP believe that everything can be solved by increasing taxes? I cannot wrap my head around that. I cannot understand it. What we need to do is lower taxes and reduce the size of the government to try to save money in a lot of different places. I would remind the House that, in 2015, the Liberal government said that it would run three small deficits of $10 billion, but it ran a $100-billion deficit after three years. Then, the pandemic hit. Imagine what that would mean if a recession were to hit. That would add fuel to the fire. The Liberals are going to make the inflationary spiral we are experiencing in Canada even worse. Canada must be able to compete in a global economy, and the worst thing that can be done for investment in Canada is to entrust this government with the task of determining which industries are more deserving of preferential tax rates and which ones should be given punitive tax rates. It can take years before a company takes off and becomes profitable. There is still a lot of uncertainty in the business community right now. The government cannot just suddenly decide how a society will pay taxes based on public discontent. We need to maintain a predictable business environment. Did the NDP think about how many more public servants it will take to administer this new tax and to redistribute the funding? How much will that cost in paperwork alone? The government is slow enough as it is in delivering its current programs. This would only make things worse. In rural ridings like mine, people are tired of paying more and more taxes. This only increases the cost of travelling long distances to work, to school, to kids' activities or simply to the grocery store. We say no to any more taxes. The cost of living is high enough as it is.

1546 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/21/22 1:07:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member said that the Liberal government has devalued the Canadian dollar. I am wondering by which measure he is making this claim. If the member is claiming it is based on valuing it against the U.S. dollar, the exchange rate is actually among the highest in the last five years. If he is talking about it in terms of what inflation has done to the Canadian dollar, indeed that inflationary impact has been felt around the entire globe. The value of our dollar still remains significantly higher than other countries'. Can the member clarify what he meant when he said the Liberal government has devalued the Canadian dollar? By most measures, that is just factually untrue.

120 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 42