44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 26, 2023 02:00PM
- Apr/26/23 6:16:01 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member is out of time. I signalled to him several times. His time is up unless he has the consent of the House to finish his thought.
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their solidarity.
I just wanted to add that all of this, along with the Bloc Québécois amendments that were rejected in committee, unfortunately mean that we must oppose the bill.
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank members of the community who have stepped up for the Simon Fraser University football team.
As members know, the administration at SFU cut the football program just a few weeks ago. This program has produced some of the best football players in Canada. We have had a remarkable reaction from the public, which put in place a financial plan that ensures the continuity of the program. It is now really up to the SFU administration to reverse its decision and stop the cuts to the program.
I am here to talk about Bill S-211. To avoid the problem that my colleague had, I will start by saying that the NDP will be voting against this bill because it is an empty shell. It does nothing to change the situation of people experiencing systemic human rights violations around the world. I will talk about a few cases later in my speech.
The fact of the matter is that this bill really does nothing to change an extremely difficult situation when it comes to human rights violations.
I just have to speak of three of the many examples of systemic human rights violations that have taken place on the grounds of Canadian companies. We can think about this for just a moment. Canada is standing up for human rights, but when it comes to some of our corporations acting abroad, they have acted in the most nefarious ways and trampled on basic human rights. Bill S-211 would not address any of the three examples I will give, which is why we need robust legislation.
I appreciate my colleague from the Bloc Québécois endorsing NDP bills, which I will speak about in a moment, from me and the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona, the NDP foreign affairs critic.
The first example is about forced labour by Nevsun in Eritrea. Forced labour, or slavery, occurs on the grounds of a Canadian-owned company. This is the most outrageous abuse of human rights, and yet it is connected to Canada. We must all bear the shame of a company that acts in that way and allows systemic slavery on its grounds.
The second example is in El Salvador, and the company involved is Pacific Rim. We are talking about the most egregious, horrific torture and murder of environmental activists who were speaking up against the mine. Again, here is an example of a Canadian company functioning abroad with systemic human rights violations.
The third example is Barrick Gold in Papua New Guinea. We are talking about systemic sexual violence and torture of many women in the area of that mine.
In all these cases, the judicial systems simply do not work. There is no protection from government. We are talking about corrupt judicial systems and police who have been paid off. We are talking about a complete Wild West for human rights violations.
Each one of these examples, most egregiously, involves Canadian companies. Members can imagine the horrific results for the victims, whether we are talking about forced labour and slavery, systemic sexual violence or the torture and murder of environmental activists. This is why we need legislation that will actually do the job to force companies to comply and ensure that those companies are held liable and held to account.
There simply cannot be two fates for Canadian companies, one when they are subject to the rule of law here in Canada and a second in the Wild West, where the most outrageous, atrocious human rights violations can occur with impunity on the grounds of these Canadian firms, and where these companies can act without any regard for fundamental human rights and values. This is why I brought forward Bill C-262.
I want to state very clearly that this bill that I am presenting on the floor, Bill C-262, comes after incredible work by the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability. It includes activists from some of the most significant organizations in Canada, such as Oxfam Canada, Amnesty International Canada and Human Rights Watch Canada, along with a number of very important labour organizations, in both the private and the public sectors. They are all standing together to say that Canada's appalling corporate human rights violations abroad need to be treated with the rigour and the type of legislative framework that will force companies to stop these appalling abuses and practices. The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability did much of the vital groundwork for the bill that I am bringing forward, Bill C-262.
This is a bill that would actually address human rights abuses. It would hold companies to account and force them to do their due diligence before an investment. It would make them liable. These are just three cases among many. If there was systemic sexual violence, torture and murder of activists, or slavery or forced labour, the companies would be held to account. The directors and leaders of those companies would be held to account.
That is why Bill S-211 falls so far short. It is just an empty box that asks a few companies to prepare some kind of report. It does not hold them liable. It does not hold them to account. It does not force them to stop the most egregious human rights violations that are taking place in their operations on their property.
If those companies can be proud of their relationship to Canada, I can say that Canadians are not proud of those companies' relationship with Canada; we have done nothing. The current and previous governments did nothing to address violations that continue to this day. It may be a different country. It may be a different set of appalling human rights violations, but the reality is that what we are seeing is these companies acting with impunity.
That is why Bill C-262 is so very important. It would force an end to slavery, forced labour and systemic sexual violence. It would force an end to companies' security guards torturing and killing activists, who are speaking up for their community, with impunity. These are all things that need to be addressed, and that is why I wanted to thank the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability and all its member organizations, which worked so assiduously on this for Canada to finally start addressing the elephant in the room. We pay lip service to human rights abroad, but we do nothing to force our companies, as well as their directors and leaders, to be accountable for the actions that they allow to take place on their property and in their operations.
The NDP, as the worker bees in this Parliament, tried to improve Bill S-211. We tried to give it a backbone. We tried to take the empty box that is Bill S-211 and bring some content to it. We offered half a dozen amendments that come from the activist sector, those organizations that are most attuned to the issue of human rights. We saw Liberals and Conservatives systematically rejecting each one of those amendments.
We can just think about that for a moment. Every member of Parliament is aware of the appalling human rights abuses that have taken place through Canadian companies acting abroad. A bill that pays only lip service to that is before a committee. The NDP offered amendments that would actually make the bill meaningful, and the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against them.
We will be voting against this bill, and we will be bringing forward very strong human rights legislation. That is what the world calls for, and that is what Canadians deserve.
1281 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge that this debate is taking place on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
I want to begin by stating that the government will be supporting the bill.
The Minister of Labour has a mandate to introduce government legislation that will eradicate forced labour in our supply chains. This was also part of a platform promise in our last election. In budget 2023, we committed to introducing that legislation by the end of next year. The government's priority is to pass the most effective legislation possible. Bill S-211 represents an important first step, and through government legislation, we will seek not only to improve upon it, but to go further.
How prevalent is this problem? The latest numbers from the International Labour Organization estimate that there are over 27 million victims of forced labour worldwide. This number has increased by 2.7 million people since 2016, in part due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we have strong indication that this number still likely underestimates the pandemic's full effects on forced labour. In addition, global estimates indicate that at the beginning of 2020 there were approximately 160 million children who were victims of child labour, including forced child labour, and this number, too, is expected to rise, given increased poverty driven by the pandemic.
These types of practices are deplorable, and our government strongly condemns the use of forced labour and all forms of exploitation in the production of goods.
This issue has garnered attention on a global scale. In fact, many countries have introduced or announced measures to address labour exploitation in supply chains, including different forms of supply chain legislation. Others have import prohibitions on goods produced using forced labour, such as the U.S., Canada and, soon, Mexico. The European Union is considering a regulatory proposal on prohibiting forced labour goods from its market as well.
Fighting forced labour and child labour is a complex problem that demands a comprehensive solution. Supply chains are becoming increasingly multi-faceted, with multiple tiers that could involve a parent company, a subsidiary company, suppliers and subcontractors spread across the world. This makes it difficult to pinpoint at which stage forced labour, child labour or other forms of exploitation may occur.
Despite this, our government is taking action. Over the past few years, the government has introduced a number of initiatives to help tackle labour exploitation in global supply chains. For example, when it comes to negotiating trade agreements with other countries, we include comprehensive and enforceable labour provisions to protect workers, and we help uphold those protections, including by providing assistance to partner countries in meeting these obligations. For example, we are providing funding through World Vision Canada to increase protections against child and forced labour in several agricultural sectors in Mexico.
In addition, in July 2020, we included a ban in the Customs Tariff to prohibit the importation into Canada of goods that are mined, manufactured or produced by forced labour. This is a relatively novel mechanism to address the issue, with the United States being the only other country with such a ban in place, which has evolved over the last 90 years. Departments are in regular contact with American counterparts to learn from the expertise they have built up over decades.
We have also taken steps toward strengthening federal procurement. Its entire contracting regime has changed, including updating the government's code of conduct for procurement to include clear expectations for suppliers and their subcontractors when it comes to human and labour rights.
In 2022, our government introduced a new responsible business conduct strategy. The strategy focuses on ways to build awareness and increase company-led due diligence and accountability. We know that government action alone is not enough. We need all hands on deck: government, industry and civil society.
As I have mentioned, the COVID-19 pandemic has widened social inequalities and increased the risk of fundamental labour and other human rights violations for the most vulnerable around the world. If we want to make Canadian supply chains more resilient and sustainable for years to come, we must eliminate forced labour and employ a range of measures to address exploitation in supply chains.
This is a priority for the government and a key mandate commitment for the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Safety, as well as the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development.
While labour exploitation is a global problem, we must also take an approach that fits the Canadian context. In 2019, the government held extensive consultations on this issue with more than 55 stakeholders in Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver. We also held online consultations and garnered more than 100 responses.
Last spring, the Government of Canada released a report entitled, “Labour Exploitation in Global Supply Chains: What We Heard Report”. This report captures everything our stakeholders shared through those consultations. They told us loud and clear that labour exploitation, including forced labour, is unacceptable and that the Government of Canada should take further action to address it.
Since then, our government has continued to engage with numerous stakeholders on the issue of forced labour in supply chains, including civil society organizations, advocacy groups, industry, foreign governments and international organizations. In recognition of what we heard from stakeholders and international developments on this issue, we have been gathering information on global best practices from international partners and organizations, including further input received from stakeholders on key elements that often form part of supply chain legislation.
These include the scope of potential legislation, the type of requirements that should be imposed on businesses, the entities that should be captured by the legislation and other potential flexibilities that could be considered, the approach to enforcement and governance, as well as non-legislative tools and other measures that are needed to support entities in meeting their obligations under supply chain legislation.
There is no doubt that the sponsor of this bill has done a tremendous amount of work and has worked on this for many years. Many members from many parties have also undertaken this work. I also want to thank those in the other place for the work they have done, including the other sponsor of this bill. This is an extremely important issue, and for that we continue to applaud the tireless efforts of our esteemed colleagues.
We must act, but also, as has been said in this chamber, legislation cannot just be words on paper. The legislative framework needs to be on strong legal and operational footings.
It should be in line with the latest approaches being undertaken by like-minded countries, with whom we must collaborate to end this scourge. We need to equip businesses and other regulated parties to comply, and ensure that expertise and capacity exist for the regulator to monitor and enforce, so the legislation has the desired impact, and so it is a strong legislative framework that will be effectively enforced.
Ultimately, while this is a complex endeavour, we are committed to doing this work, and we will get it done. In closing, I want to once more make it clear that forced labour is unacceptable in Canada or any place in this world. This bill represents an important first step, but it will not be the last one.
Working with parliamentarians, industry and civil society, the government has committed to developing and introducing legislation that will go further. Everyone has the same goal here, which is eradicating forced labour from Canada's supply chains.
The Government of Canada is committed to that work, and to employing a range of measures so that Canadian businesses do not contribute to this or other forms of human rights abuses.
We will do everything in our power to ensure that goods coming into the country, our stores and our homes, and that the practices companies are engaging in abroad, are free from the stain of forced labour.
1346 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is nice to rise in the House to speak to a bill that comes to us from our colleagues in the Senate, where there is general agreement among the parties that there needs to be action taken on this issue. After listening to some of the speeches earlier today, it does not sound as though there is going to be unanimous support in the House for this bill, but I think there will be enough to get it across the finish line.
I am a father of three and a grandfather of 10 children, some of whom may even be watching today. The issues related to children are very important to me today, as I think they are to all of us in the House. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share my thoughts on this bill, which our friends in the Senate have put before us.
I want to thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for presenting this bill, as well as Bill S-210, which I am also very strongly in favour of. The latter is a bill that calls for age-verification methods to be implemented to protect children from online pornography, another type of exploitation. It passed the Senate last week and I hope we will be debating it in the House very soon.
UNICEF, in its 2021 report, showed that the number of children involved in child labour had risen to 160 million worldwide, an increase of 8.4 million over the preceding four years, the first significant increase in this generation. The most significant jump was for kids aged five to 11, and the number of children doing hazardous work rose from 6.5 million to 79 million between 2016 and 2020. Again, those numbers are from UNICEF.
We know who the culprits are. We know which corporate entities are utilizing child labour, and we know about the children in Congo getting sent down mines to bring up the cobalt so that we here in Canada can have the latest device or drive an electric car. However, it goes even deeper than that, with many layers to consider.
Canadians are great people. We are kind, generous and compassionate. We can ask any Canadian if they think that child or forced labour is a bad thing and every one of them would say yes. If we ask them if the Government of Canada should do something about it, they will say, “Yes, we must.” Should we ban products produced with forced labour or child labour? Absolutely. That is good, but what are they willing to give up in order for that to happen? I realize that it is hardly that simple, but, really, that is the question. To be honest, most Canadians would be shocked to discover what products we use and enjoy on a daily basis that, in fact, contribute to robbing children of their freedoms.
While I may not always see eye to eye with my colleague from Vancouver East, I would like to reference some statistics from her speech in March. According to a 2016 report from World Vision, it is estimated that 1,200 companies operating in Canada are importing over 34 billion dollars' worth of goods produced by child or forced labour every single year, and that is right here in Canada.
I serve a rural riding and I am an agriculture kind of guy. Canada's farmers are the best in the world, but internationally, the agriculture and grocery industries are among the worst offenders for forced labour and child labour. Seventy-one per cent of all child labour takes places in the agriculture sector, and many of its items end up on Canadian grocery store shelves. In 2019, more than 3.7 billion dollars' worth of these food products were imported into Canada, a 63% increase from 10 years ago.
I look at that number and think about the fact that, as Canadians, we waste somewhere around 58% of the food we produce here in Canada. According to research done by Toronto-based Second Harvest, some 4.8 million tonnes of food is lost or wasted during processing and manufacturing and some 2.38 million tonnes is lost at the consumer level.
In short, the abundance of food we produce here in Canada has led us to dismiss its intrinsic value and we actually waste more than we consume. In a world struggling to feed itself and in a country where one in five families is struggling to feed itself, it is hard to fathom those numbers. Then we turn a blind eye and import billions of dollars' worth of food from countries and companies where we know it is kids slaving to produce it. It is mind-boggling. It is so wrong.
I am glad we are having this conversation. I am glad we have this bill, and there are positive aspects of this legislation. However, I just wish this bill had more teeth. The legislation is great in principle, but there are still some problems with this bill. Given that this will likely be the last chance we have to address these issues, I am going to raise a few of them here.
First, the bill does not prescribe what specific measures a company must take to be in compliance. Yes, it includes general guidance as to what information should be provided, but it is the reporting entities themselves that will retain discretion over the design and implementation of compliance systems.
The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, which includes such members as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch Canada, puts it more bluntly. It states that Bill S-211 would only apply to a small minority of companies and it “does not require companies to stop using child or forced labour....or to conduct human rights due diligence.”
If that is the case, or even if we are just leaving it up to the individual companies to police themselves, which in some cases is the very reason why this type of legislation is necessary and has been brought forward, then this legislation may really not have the teeth we all want it to have.
I think this is a situation where it is appropriate for the government to give specific and binding measures and standards to remediate forced labour or child labour in order to be in compliance; otherwise, this is what I see happening.
We will pass this bill. Let us pick a corporation. We will call it the Orange Company. For years, it has used child labour to source its material and build its products. When this legislation comes into effect, Orange Company needs to send its report to the minister's office, so it looks at the guidelines, creates its own reporting system and prepares a report. Who needs to approve this report? If we look at part 2, subsection 4(a), it is the entity's governing body. What other verification is required? One signature. It states in subsection 5(b), “the signature of one or more members of the governing body.”
Without me needing to stretch out this illustration, we can foresee how this does not provide sufficient accountability. Not only that, the systemic concerns run deep, far deeper than what I have time to discuss here.
Let me affirm the efforts identifying, in part 2, subsection 12(1), the minister's prerogative of asking for a revised report in the event of skepticism. I can imagine how this step would force companies to dig deeper and divulge more. However, the consequence for non-compliance is only a fine, really a small fine compared to the revenue that many of these companies will actually generate.
I recognize this legislation is a starting point and we do need to start somewhere, but like so many other topics, this requires a much broader national conversation, one that considers all different layers, including those of the victims. We can slap on band-aids and promise the world, then pat ourselves on the back, but real change always comes with a cost, a cost that would probably infringe on some of the many treasured items that we use daily. That is true of the economy and it is true of our society.
Author Rosie Danan wrote:
Change always comes with a closing cost. But it's still worth trying. Not because the odds are particularly good, mind you, but considering the alternative. There's value in the struggle. Value in touching the raw and bloody parts of our souls, opening them up to the sunlight, and hoping they heal.
As parliamentarians, we have the ability to pass a child and forced labour law that has teeth. We have the ability to ensure that no products made with forced or child labour enter Canada. We can levy severe financial or criminal penalties on those entities that use forced labour, and that do or want to do business here in Canada. We can do all that. The question is this: As Canadians, is that really something that we are willing to do?
1526 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be one of the last people to speak to this bill. My colleague opposite and I worked together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security when he was chair, and I know that he worked hard on this. I therefore commend him for his work. I also want to commend Senator Miville‑Dechêne for her work.
I know that almost everything has already been said about this bill in the House, but I think it is important to put things into context. In order to do so, I referenced the open letter that Senator Miville‑Dechêne wrote in La Presse last November. The letter had to do with a subject or a reality that we know very little about or that we are aware of but would prefer to cravenly ignore. I am talking about forced labour and child labour.
Like many of my colleagues mentioned, these types of labour help provide consumers in wealthy countries like Canada with all sorts of products at low prices. This is not a new concept. The International Labour Organization's Forced Labour Convention defines forced labour as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily”.
The International Labour Organization estimates that in 2019, 25 million children and adults were in forced labour. World Vision Canada estimates that Canadian imports worth $43 billion may have been produced through the work of children and forced labour in 2020. That is nearly 7% of Canadian imports that come from forced labour.
It is likely that the pandemic brought this sad phenomenon into sharper focus. The race to procure personal protective equipment exacerbated the exploitation of the most vulnerable. For example, in October 2021, the United States seized at its border a shipment of medical gloves from a Malaysian company alleged to rely on forced labour. It was the fourth Malaysian business to be hit with this type of sanction in 15 months alone.
Our own country bought and used millions of gloves from two of these tainted suppliers, even though a law has been in place for more than a year at the border to ban the entry of such shipments. As you can see, this is not enough to prevent the phenomenon from spreading to our borders.
This forced labour or child labour—which is sometimes referred to as modern slavery—has infiltrated our everyday consumption for a very long time, especially in the western world. Unfortunately, on this issue, Canada has just sat idly by, unlike many European parliaments. The UK, France and Germany have already passed laws that require companies to investigate and report on the risks of forced labour in their supply chains.
While reading up on the topic yesterday, I came across a news report on Radio-Canada's RAD platform about fast fashion. It is a phenomenon that led to the 2013 factory collapse in Bangladesh that killed over 1,000 people. Ten years later, there are questions about whether working conditions in the textile industry have improved. This is an industry that produces clothes that we wear here—brands like Mango and Joe Fresh. The answer, unfortunately, is quite definite. The rights of the workers in this industry are still being violated and their working conditions are still poor. People even said they had concerns about their health.
As long as we do not change our economic model, then forced labour is here to stay. What is being done to prevent this, to ensure that Canada is not contributing to forced labour? We need to require companies to be more transparent about their practices in order to eradicate the risks of forced labour and child labour in their supply chains. That is a good place to start.
Is that enough? Unfortunately, the answer is no. That is where we see that Bill S‑211, although it is a very good bill, may not go far enough. I was given a comparative chart on the difference between Bill S‑211 and Bill C‑262. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot spoke earlier to Bill C‑262, which he co-sponsored.
When we ask the basic question of whether the bill ensures respect for human rights, the chart tells us that for Bill S‑211, the answer is no. That is because the entire responsibility for reporting and investigating is placed on the companies, but they are not asked to take action.
Conversely, Bill C‑262 “recognizes that companies have a responsibility to respect human rights, and must proactively take steps to prevent human rights violations throughout their supply chains and global operations.”
When we ask ourselves this basic question, we already know that if we have to choose one of these bills, we will choose the more binding bill.
We voted in favour of Bill S‑211 at second reading because, as I mentioned, it would require Canadian companies to be more transparent about the measures they are taking to prevent and reduce the risk that forced labour or child labour is used in their supply chains.
This is a very good thing, but the question is and remains: Can we go even further? The answer is yes. In reading about the subject, I learned that although the United States sometimes lags behind Canada, in this particular area, it is quite the opposite. The rules that apply at the borders are more restrictive in the United States. We would do well to emulate that country or to draw inspiration from it.
971 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 6:51:05 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood has five minutes for his right of reply.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank colleagues for participating in this debate. I am probably a bit more enthusiastic about some colleagues than others. Nevertheless, I thank them.
This is close to the end of a four-year journey for us. We have introduced this bill a couple of times. However, for World Vision, it has been a 10-year journey. I want to commend the work of Martin Fischer, Michael Messenger and Matthew Musgrave for their tireless work over the last 10 years to get this legislation to where it is today.
I also want to recognize my staff, Shawn Boyle; my colleague in the Senate, Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne; and her staff, Jérôme Lussier.
Yesterday, Stop the Traffik, a world-leading, U.K.-based anti-trafficking organization had a press release that began, “The Canadian Parliament Debate World-Leading Bill.” I will repeat that for my colleagues who seem to be a little skeptical. It said, “world-leading bill”.
The press release continues on the “supply chain transparency and the application of company law and then introduced the concept of governing body signing off on the modern slavery statement, to make the law more meaningful by triggering Director duties and other elements of the legal system.” I will note that it is not just anybody signing off on any statement anytime, anyplace.
It continues, “Canada is now proposing to take this legislative approach much further and to add serious penalties – including fines and direct criminal liability for noncompliance.” Those people, who are knowledgeable and working abroad, have noticed the work of Canadians working here at home.
Border controls have been tried with not a lot of success. Trade treaties, again, were tried with not a heck of a lot of success. Criminal prosecutions are spotty. ESG and social responsibility efforts are good and are to be encouraged, but again, they are non-enforceable and somewhat sporadic. We are not debating a phantom bill such as my colleagues in the NDP want to debate. Bill C-262 has little or no chance of getting on the floor. What is on the floor is Bill S-211, and Bill S-211 is a transparency bill which, over time, has morphed into more of a due-diligence bill with due-diligence characteristics.
I want to remind colleagues that Bill S-211 carries fines, and not insignificant fines. The bill would entitle the minister to search and seize computers and other records, entitle the minister to a warrant, create indirect criminal liability for non-compliance and false statements, and have financial consequences for failure to file a report. To be truthful, these have consequences, financial and regulatory, which some of my hon. colleagues may not fully appreciate. The bill would also give the minister the ability to draft regulations that may over time become tougher each year.
I sincerely want to acknowledge the work of the Minister of Labour and his commitment in budget 2023 to introduce legislation in 2024 that would eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains and to strengthen the ban on goods produced using forced labour.
I am not pretending that Bill S-211 is the final step. It is a first step, and the first step actually puts us at the head of all nations who have legislation such as this. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favour of the bill, as it is a useful way to move us from laggard to leader.
593 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 6:55:58 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 6:57:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 6:57:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually this evening to pursue a question I initially asked in question period on February 13. This was in advance of receiving our federal budget from the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance did respond, on the floor of the House, to the question I asked that day.
I have contrasted what Canada is doing to go after the excess profit garnered by particularly large oil corporations and fossil fuel companies to what is being done in the United States. I cited, at that point, what had been a recent state of the union address from U.S. President Joe Biden, who recently spoke in this very place, that called out big oil for its excessive profits.
The President of the United States called that “outrageous”. He pledged to quadruple the tax on corporate stock buybacks. Around the same time the Secretary-General of the United Nations called such excess profits “immoral”.
In Canada, the biggest oil and gas companies in this country amassed more than $66 billion in profits in one year. That is double what they accumulated in the previous decade.
I think of the call months ago from the business pages of The Globe and Mail, which is not generally a strong critic of excess profits. The Globe and Mail veteran journalist, Eric Reguly, commented that not only were these excess profits, but they amounted to, in his words, “war profiteering”.
My parents' generation did not tolerate war profiteering. War profiteers were not celebrated and rewarded. What Eric Reguly's column pointed out was that the excess profits of the fossil fuel sector, in the recent past, have nothing to do with business acumen or good planning for which corporations and their shareholders should be rewarded. It was entirely due to Putin's brutal attack on Ukraine, allowing some corporations to benefit, and I will again use the word of United Nation's Secretary-General Guterres, who called it “immoral”. This is almost unbelievable.
We just had, before the environment committee days ago, testimony from Mr. Brad Corson. He is the CEO of Imperial Oil, which is really an American company operating in Canada. It is a subsidiary of Exxon. I struggle to understand how the poor man made ends meet when just a year and a half ago he only made $8.5 million a year. This last year, his salary doubled, so he now makes more than $17 million a year.
This is the same company that did not divulge, and one could say “hid”, from first nations and Métis people in the vicinity of the oil sands, that toxic materials that were carcinogenics were leaking into the watershed and surrounding areas. He is rewarded with the doubling of his personal salary, but that is nothing compared to the profits received by these oil and gas companies in a period of time when their benefits have to do with Putin's attack on Ukraine. Surely we can do better.
The PBO estimates we could get $8 billion with a tax on excess profits. What are we waiting for?
534 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 7:01:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and the folks in the beautiful province of Nova Scotia. I wish my friend from the Green Party was here in the House today, as it is always lovely to see her. I am pleased to take part in tonight's debate.
When my hon. colleague posed her initial question, she asked about the possibility of increasing the windfall tax in Canada following an announcement made by President Biden. As the Deputy Prime Minister rightly noted, our government has already introduced a 2% share buyback tax, which is double the current U.S. level. We introduced this tax because we absolutely believe it is appropriate for our tax system to encourage Canadian companies to invest in Canada and invest in Canada's workers and our economy.
It does not stop there. Our government has been and remains committed to making sure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. We know that the programs and services Canadians rely on are dependent on a robust national tax base. That is why we have moved forward with several measures since 2015 to ensure that everyone pays their fair share.
Since 2015, we have taken actions to close loopholes, crack down on tax avoidance and ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share. For example, we understand that through the significant use of deductions, credits and other tax preferences, some of the wealthiest Canadians pay little to no personal income tax in a given year. That is why we are proposing, in budget 2023, legislative amendments to raise the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, rate from 15% to 20.5% and to further limit the excessive use of tax preferences. These amendments would generate an estimated $3 billion in revenue over five years, beginning in the 2024 taxation year.
Another proposed reform is that the basic AMT exemption would increase more than fourfold, from $40,000 to $173,000, significantly increasing the income level necessary to pay the AMT. This would result in tax cuts for tens of thousands of middle-class Canadians, while the AMT would more precisely target the very wealthy. Under these reforms, more than 99% of the AMT paid by individual Canadians would be paid by those who earn more than $300,000 per year, and about 80% of the AMT paid would be by those who earn more than $1 million per year.
Budget 2022 announced a permanent increase of the corporate income tax by 1.5% on the largest, most profitable banks and insurance companies. It also announced the Canada recovery dividend of 15% on banks and insurance companies to help support Canada's broader recovery. In addition, our government is committed to phasing out or rationalizing inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that give fossil fuels an unfair advantage over much cleaner solutions. We have accelerated the previous timeline for doing so from 2025 to this year.
In budget 2022, the government also committed to eliminating the flow-through share regime for fossil fuel activities. This is being done by no longer allowing expenditures related to oil, gas and coal exploration and development to be renounced to flow-through share investors for flow-through share agreements entered into after March 31, 2023.
554 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 7:04:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is easily researched that the Government of Canada charges less tax on oil and gas companies than the United States does, and this is in a period of time when we are still subsidizing oil and gas. While I do appreciate the comments from my friend, the hon. parliamentary secretary, we are still subsidizing oil and gas, with increased subsidies in budget 2023, by providing more access to government funds for carbon capture and storage. If those in the industry want to use that method, they should pay for it themselves. We are also introducing a new approach to use fossil fuels in producing hydrogen, which should only be produced from renewable sources so that it is truly green energy.
We have enormous potential in Canada to move to a green economy and to decarbonize, but not if we keep shovelling money at companies that are already experiencing obscene levels of profit.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 7:05:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that we have enormous opportunity here in Canada. We are seeing the things we have done since 2015 come to fruition. We have said from the start that the economy and the environment go hand in hand, and we are seeing partnerships working in a cleaner, greener Canada.
Budget 2023 is making targeted and responsible investments to build a stronger economic future for all Canadians. In the end, these will make Canada a better place to live, work and thrive for everyone. However, our government understands that the programs and services Canadians rely on, including old age security, the Canada child benefit, early learning and child care, and transfers to provinces in support of health care and education, are dependent on a national tax base. That is why, in budget 2023, we built on the progress we have made since 2015 to close loopholes, crack down on tax avoidance and ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 7:07:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am grateful to be here today to ask the member some follow-up questions around tax fairness for seniors.
I want to first give a big shout-out to Single Seniors for Tax Fairness for its advocacy and work to bring light and solutions forward around the unfair tax system that negatively impacts single seniors. In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC Seniors and Pensioners Nanaimo has been serving our community for more than 80 years. This organization provides vital services and social activities for seniors.
I am here to talk a little bit more about, and get some more answers around, why we are not implementing the changes necessary to support seniors.
One statistic is that 39% of seniors in Canada are single. Just to clarify, I am defining these seniors as being 65 and older with no partner: single, widowed or divorced. Of these single seniors I am referring to, women are disproportionately represented, for many reasons. One is that they live longer. Another point that is important is that singles need two-thirds of the income of couples to maintain a similar lifestyle to their coupled counterparts.
I think of Margaret, a constituent in my riding who is widowed. She is living off OAS and CPP. She shared with me that she has all these expenses that just keep adding up. She is asking herself when it will stop. She pays $800 each month for prescription drugs. She asked herself if she will be forced to reduce her prescription medications due to their high cost. Margaret has various health conditions that require monitoring by a health professional but she no longer has a family doctor, so she has nobody to turn to for necessary ongoing health concerns. She shared with me that she is suffering and feels like she has been pushed to the side and is not getting any help.
Currently what we see in place is that coupled seniors are experiencing tax advantages, rightfully so. They are able to make the most of their money, through income splitting of pension income, for example, which reduces the amount of taxes that each partner pays, and makes them both often eligible for full OAS payments with no clawbacks. They are able to transfer between portfolios like RRSPs, RRIFs and TFSAs.
Single seniors, on the other hand, are not able to take advantage of these same tax rules. For example, they are not able to split their full pension income. They pay full taxes on pensions, which increases the probability of OAS clawbacks. Ultimately, they are receiving less income. There are multiple ways in which single seniors, just because of their relationship status, are being placed in a position of further disadvantage.
Seniors have contributed to our communities in endless ways. At this time in their lives, more than ever, they should not have to worry about having the funds to make ends meet or about their loved ones not having access to the funds intended for them when they pass.
The question I asked the Prime Minister when he was here earlier was why single seniors are not receiving the same tax advantages as their coupled counterparts. Why is the Liberal government not making the necessary changes to ensure that seniors are not disadvantaged based solely on their relationship status?
557 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 7:11:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are a lot of wonderful members of Parliament in the House of Commons, and I can tell colleagues that this member is one of them. I am perfectly willing to continue this conversation about seniors at any time with this member and other members.
I agree wholeheartedly with this member that this is a very important issue. After a lifetime of hard work, seniors deserve a secure retirement. They should not need to be worried about making ends meet.
That is why our government is continuing to step up to put more money into the pockets of seniors, including older women, when they need it most. We recognize that, although global inflation rates are declining, Canadians, including seniors, are facing affordability challenges, particularly when it comes to filling their grocery cart.
That is why, in budget 2023, we created the one-time grocery rebate, providing $2.5 billion in targeted inflation relief to the Canadians who need it the most. This means that 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, including seniors, will benefit from extra money to pay for groceries, transportation, rent and other daily expenses.
I am also happy to say that budget 2023 proposes $13 billion over five years, $4.4 billion ongoing, to implement the Canadian dental care plan. This plan will help up to nine million uninsured Canadians, including seniors, access dental care.
On top of these new measures, budget 2023 also touches on our previous measures for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, which both provide an important stable income for seniors.
Also, allow me to remind members about the programs and recent increases. The OAS program is considered the first pillar of Canada's retirement income system. Benefits under the OAS program include, among others, the basic OAS pension and the GIS for low-income seniors. There are also special allowances for low-income seniors aged 60 to 64, who are the spouses or common-law partners of GIS recipients or who are widowed.
Last summer, our government increased the OAS pension by 10% for seniors over the age of 75, more than half of whom are women, putting over $800 more in the pockets of seniors in just the first year. We also increased the GIS by 10% for nearly a million low-income single seniors. These measures are just a few in a basket of supports that the Government of Canada has provided for seniors.
We also reversed the former government's reckless decision to raise the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 for GIS and OAS, something that would have come into effect this very month without our government's intervention.
We provided tangible assistance in the form of program changes, tax breaks and top-ups. We reduced income taxes through increases to the basic personal amount and, for working Canadians, we enhanced the Canada pension plan, which is considered to be the second pillar of Canada's retirement income system. I want to emphasize that CPP offers a number of provisions, like CPP's child-rearing provisions, to support people who had a lower labour force attachment, especially women who took time off to care for their families.
Our plan is working. In fact, since 2015, we have lifted hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty, leading to poverty rates among seniors that are the lowest in our history and among the lowest in the world. All of these measures show that the financial well-being of seniors, including older women, is a priority for the Government of Canada.
599 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 7:15:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are many seniors who are reaching out to me who are struggling to make ends meet. I want to mention two seniors in particular.
Robin is a single senior in my riding living on a fixed income. She currently pays 75% of her income on housing. This is way too much for her to be paying.
Mary, another constituent in my riding, who is widowed and living off of a fixed income, is experiencing health conditions. She has diabetes and renal failure, to be specific, and has been recommended a special diet to minimize the impacts of these health conditions, but she cannot afford to purchase the foods that are being recommended to her by the dieticians so she can live her healthiest, happiest life.
There are some real solutions being put forward by Single Seniors for Tax Fairness, which I believe are tangible and clear ways that the government can move forward to help seniors. One example is to give seniors, upon their death, the right to transfer their—
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 7:16:25 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up. That one minute does go by very fast.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 7:16:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to offer the opportunity to chat in a sidebar with that member at any time on any type of advocacy for seniors in Canada.
The Government of Canada continues to do more to support seniors, including older women. Please allow me to provide members, once again, with a snapshot of what a 76-year-old woman in British Columbia, with a maximum GIS entitlement, could now receive. She could be eligible for more than $2,000 in additional support in 2023, thanks to the grocery rebate, the GIS top-up, the increase for single seniors introduced in 2016 and the new increase to the OAS pension for seniors over 75. That could be an extra $2,000 in her pocket this year.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
