- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Simcoe North
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $121,028.17
- Government Page
- Dec/12/22 12:36:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.
It is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber to speak to legislation. Today, we are talking about Bill S-8 to ensure that foreign nationals who are subject to economic sanctions are not able to enter our country.
Since we are also talking about human rights, I did want to take a moment to address an incident that happened this weekend to a very important person to Parliament, Irwin Cotler, who was at the premier of a documentary of his life and tireless work for human rights across the world. He was openly harassed and criticized at this event, which disrupted it and made quite a mockery of the whole thing. It made people very uncomfortable. Everyone should be open to public criticism and debate, as Mr. Cotler has always been and has never shied away from, but we are losing our decency as a society if we think it is acceptable to treat fellow humans this way.
In many circumstances, criticisms of accomplished Jewish people are often rooted in some form of anti-Semitism. It is okay for us to disagree with each other and we should encourage that at all times, but free speech also comes with a responsibility to treat one another with respect and decency.
We are now 10 months into Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, but it was back in 2014 when Russia took actions and annexed Crimea. This egregious step was a blatant violation of international law. These attacks have caused the widespread devastation of Ukrainian infrastructure and property and the deaths of a number of civilians, notably women and children. These actions are a continuation of accelerated aggressive steps taken by Russia against Ukraine, and they threaten the international rules-based order. Canada responded, in part, through the use of economic measures, as did many of our allies. These sanctions are contained in the Special Economic Measures Act, and they affect about 1,000 individuals in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
The bill we have before us seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, as we just heard the minister refer to it, in order to do several things, as I understand it.
First, the bill seeks to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions in order to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions that Canada may impose in response to an act of aggression.
Second, it proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on such sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country, but also those imposed on an entity or a person. This is important given we have listed individuals as part of our economic sanctions, not just countries.
Third, it would expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act.
Last, it would amend the immigration and refugee protection regulations to provide that the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, rather than the immigration division, will have the authority to issue a removal order on the grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under a new paragraph of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That will provide Canada with the needed ability to better link government action with economic sanctions for those who are seeking to come into Canada and experience a wonderful life here.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act defines when a person is inadmissible to Canada and establishes the applicable criteria for all foreign nationals and permanent residents who seek to enter or remain in Canada. However, its inadmissibility provisions do not align with the basis for imposing the majority of economic sanctions. This means that an individual who has been sanctioned economically can still show up to Canada and claim refugee protection. They are then able to be here in Canada to experience the life we have built. This is quite clearly a loophole that undermines confidence in our system and laws, and Canadians will not accept that these sanctioned individuals get to remain in Canada.
This loophole matters not only to Russian actors. Let us not forget about other countries with citizens who have been subjected to some of these sanctions: Belarus, Myanmar, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea and, of course, Iran.
With Iran, I will also mention that we should be doing much more than we are. We just heard an exchange between members of the opposition and the minister on that front. It is important to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. That was the will of the House constituted back in 2018 and was again reaffirmed by the House just recently. We must act much more forcefully with respect to the IRGC. Canadians expect that of us.
Canada is often behind when it comes to some of these international actions. This is becoming part of our international reputation, and it is not a good one. We have been late with Magnitsky sanctions. We often wait to see where the political winds are blowing. We are too careful not to offend anyone.
Let us consider the government's official response to the Iranian protests, as we have discussed, or the treatment of the Uighur population by the Chinese Communist Party. We have been calling on the government to do more and it continually shies away from its responsibility. We are not being taken as seriously by the international community as we once were.
All too often, Canada's position is not substantive and not principle-based. It is slow to act, and often with half measures. Take, for example, the government's frenetic position on China. If we do not like the government's policy on China, we just have to ask another minister and we will eventually get the answer we like. Often the government is caught without a plan and requires significant public shaming to get some action.
Let us take, for example, the international commitment to fight money laundering through introducing a beneficial ownership registry and regime. This is exactly connected to preventing individuals who are sanctioned economically from hiding their assets across the world. Canada has one of the weakest laws for identifying assets in beneficial ownership. We are one of the only countries that has yet to introduce the beneficial ownership registry. The government promised to do it all the way back in 2019, then it said it would not get to it until 2025. Now it says that it will be bringing it in at the end of next year, but we are still waiting to see the legislation.
Yes, the government has agreed to fast-track it, but there is still much more to do. All the other countries are moving so much further ahead of us when it comes to fighting global money laundering. Again, it is connected to this legislation because these individuals have assets all across the world. It might be the case that we will not allow sanctioned individuals to come into Canada now, but those individuals could still hide their assets here because we do not have a way of finding out who owns what in our country. We need to do much more, much more quickly on this front.
Once again, the government says all the right things, but fails to execute on much of it. Yes, we see some action here, but I guess, as the saying goes, a broken clock is right at least twice a day.
I look forward to the committee discussions on Bill S-8. It is important legislation. We have already heard members in the chamber on the opposition side ask why it is taking so long. We look forward to moving the legislation through to committee, addressing perhaps some of the amendments that were brought forward by the NDP. It is an important step for our country to put in place measures that make it harder for individuals who have violated human rights and international laws to come here, to remain in a wonderful country that we have built and get the advantages of the political and legal systems that we have built.
It is with great pleasure that I speak in favour of the legislation and I look forward to it going to committee.
1405 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity verification), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here this evening with my fellow colleagues to talk about a very important issue, which is money laundering, and to discuss a simple private member's bill to amend the Criminal Code to make it easier for authorities to prosecute and convict money launderers.
This bill is a simple addition, an amendment to the Criminal Code, to make it a criminal offence to provide false or misleading statements to a reporting entity about the identity of the account holder or the corporate structure and beneficial ownership of the ultimate account holder. Money launderers often lie about their identity or the ownership structure of the account holder. It is a simple lie that has significant impacts on Canada. This is because money laundering can impact every community across Canada.
The bill comes with penalties of up to 10 years in jail, a $1-million fine or both. It should no longer be free to wash money in Canada. These crimes, these simple lies, deserve significant consequences. The secret is that Canada has a far lower rate of prosecution and conviction for white collar and financial crimes when compared to other like countries across the world.
The Cullen commission, which was a British Columbia inquiry into money laundering, recently released its report in May of this year. It details significant concerns with and gaps in money laundering laws and has exposed the significant challenges Canadian authorities, our police and prosecutors, have in convicting money launderers. The commission heard stories of people going into casinos with hockey bags full of $20 bills as dirty money, and that money coming out washed and clean. This must stop.
These are the proceeds of crime in our communities. These are the proceeds of drug trafficking for substances such as fentanyl. They are the proceeds of human trafficking and of political corruption. When we look at what is happening across the globe from a geopolitical perspective, Russia's illegal war and invasion of Ukraine, and the political corruption and kleptocracy that goes on in some regimes, we know some of that money ends up here in Canada.
What we want to do, and what this bill proposes, is to make it easier for authorities to convict money launderers of this crime. We care about money laundering, of course, because it enables crime. We also care about it because it is expected that about $100 billion every year ends up being laundered in Canada, and much of it ends up in our real estate all across the country, which increases the demand for housing. When we increase the demand for something, we also increase the price.
Of course, the significant rise in housing prices is not related solely to money laundering. That is not what I am claiming here tonight, but it certainly does not help the situation. This increased real estate activity and demand for real estate in our major urban centres spills over into some smaller communities. As people are pushed out of major urban cores, they end up in beautiful rural parts of this country, just like Simcoe North.
In fact, the Bank of Montreal earlier this year singled out Orillia, which is in Simcoe North, as having a 300% increase in real estate prices for the average home over six years. That is a very difficult price increase to manage for local residents. It has been a challenge for renters and those trying to find housing in cities such as Orillia all across this country.
Our country has become a playground for global criminals to wash their dirty cash. Canada is even being promoted by criminals around the world as a safe haven for the proceeds of crime. That puts Canada on the map for all of the wrong reasons. The rest of the world has introduced some more stringent and stricter laws than Canada when it comes to money laundering, and that is why criminals are finding their way to Canada.
As the holes in the dike get plugged across the rest of the world, criminals will move their money to the jurisdictions with the weaker laws. Unfortunately, right now that happens to be Canada. At one point, we actually did lead the world with some laws pertaining to financial crimes, but we have unfortunately fallen behind, which means it puts us on the map for these criminals as a safe place to come and wash their money.
What can we do? These are complex, transnational organizations with links to organized crimes and corrupt political regimes. How do we make sure that they cannot use our lax systems to launder their money?
In a recent C.D. Howe intelligence memo, expert Kevin Comeau acknowledged the challenge with Canada's current laws. He wrote, “Under our present anti-money-laundering rules, financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses...are legally required to collect and verify the identity information of their clients.” Clients who provide false beneficial ownership information are often not caught when they lie about these representations. He also says, “The federal government can reduce these risks by enacting legislation attaching sanctions to false reports of beneficial ownership”. We need to give authorities the tools to make it easier to catch these criminals.
As a rookie MP, I wanted to bring forward an idea that I thought might have cross-partisan support. Money laundering, I am sure, will not have many people stand up in this House and advocate that we need to keep our laws weak. Money laundering affects us all. It is not a partisan issue, but it is one that we can all work together on.
The government, to its credit, has signalled progress on money laundering. It has actually moved up its commitment to introduce a beneficial ownership registry. That is very important. The original date was 2025. It moved that up and it is supposed to be enacted by the end of this year.
I must say that this beneficial ownership legislation is very important, but I am underlining that the beneficial ownership registry must be publicly available and it must be free of charge. It does not appear that this will initially be the case, but I hope that the government can keep this commitment. As many people in the House know and say, sunlight is, in fact, the best disinfectant.
This private member's bill, Bill C-289, is proposed to be complementary to beneficial ownership legislation, but it also stands alone. If, for some reason, the beneficial ownership legislation is delayed, or, for whatever reason, it is not brought forward and enacted this year, this private member's bill will be another tool for authorities to use to combat money laundering activity.
Additionally, penalties for lying about beneficial ownership or identity and money laundering activity should be met with criminal and not administrative penalties. We need criminal penalties for people who lie about the ownership structures of their accounts because of the harm that it does to society. These penalties must have teeth. Weak punishments will only be seen as a cost of doing business. That is how these money launderers, these sophisticated criminals, view weak punishments.
Do not take my work for it. Here are some thoughts of well-known stakeholders. Christian Leuprecht of the Macdonald Laurier Institute, a senior fellow, says, “After decades of turning a blind-eye, the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code is one of many steps Canada needs to show that it is actually serious about containing global financial crime.” James Cohen at Transparency International Canada says, “We are pleased to see the proposal of this bill that fits in with increasing attention and efforts in Canada to fight money laundering...a crucial tool in closing one of the many gaps that have been exploited by kleptocrats, tax cheats and their enablers.” Other supporters of this bill who have come forward include Publish What You Pay and Canadians for Tax Fairness.
I commit to working with members of all parties in the House on this bill. I am hoping to hear their constructive feedback. I do not quite care who gets the credit if we make significant progress affecting money launderers. I want to work with members of the House and the Senate to close other loopholes that money launderers rely on.
Some of the ideas that I plan to advance in the House also include a national commission on money laundering. I think it is important to follow the B.C. commission and bring forward a time-limited study with some concrete measures that the government can enact quickly in order to combat money laundering. There was enough evidence presented in the Cullen commission in B.C. that should give all of our legislators here in the House some cause for concern, and we must turn our mind to that on the national stage.
Additionally, the U.K. has brought in something called unexplained wealth orders, which I believe we should be considering here in the House. It would allow authorities to recover the proceeds of crime and identify assets that are purchased by criminals.
As well, there is a very simple change we could make to the Privacy Act where financial institutions could share information between themselves and the RCMP so that individuals who are identified as laundering large sums of cash cannot just walk across the street to another financial institution and continue their activity. These institutions often have significant data and intelligence on individuals or organizations who launder money. We need to make it easier for the institutions to speak to each other so that these criminals have a harder time getting access to financial products and accounts that allow them to launder their money.
In the few minutes left, I would like to thank some people.
I thank the parliamentary drafters. I think I scared them initially with some of my ideas, but we narrowed it very well. Ms. Lemaire did a fantastic job working with me and had a lot of patience with me as a rookie MP about the ideas, and I believe we landed at a great spot, an elegant spot.
I thank James Cohen from Transparency International Canada and Sasha Caldera from Publish What You Pay Canada. These individuals were with me at the very beginning talking about some ideas that we could bring forward to close money-laundering loopholes.
I thank Troy Cochrane from Canadians For Tax Fairness. Sam Cooper has been a relentless advocate on the money-laundering file for years. He was talking and writing about money laundering and uncovering financial crime. He is still doing that. He has written a book called Wilful Blindness, which I think all members of the House should consult. It gives us a small lens into a very dark world of money laundering.
I thank the Macdonald–Laurier Institute, which I mentioned earlier, as well as Kevin Comeau and others at the C.D. Howe Institute, Christian Leuprecht, whom I mentioned, Garry Clement, Jason Wadden, Tim Hyde, senators from all parties, frankly, and finally, my former director of parliamentary affairs, Ryan Ouderkirk, who is no longer in my office but left to pursue a legal education at my alma mater, Western University. He will make a fantastic lawyer. His help was instrumental in getting us to this place today. I want to thank him very much.
I thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for seconding this bill and speaking with me at length about it. I very much appreciate the veteran parliamentarian for imparting some wisdom to a rookie, and not just for his help on this bill but in general. I have been very lucky to have him as a mentor.
I will close by saying that I look forward to constructive feedback on this bill and a commitment from all members in the House to take a simple yet necessary step to close a loophole to combat money laundering. Today is the day when we can say no to global criminals who see Canada as a safe haven to launder their dirty cash.
2057 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/22 4:41:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, I feel like a baseball player who steps up to the plate after somebody has hit a home run, but I will do my best to follow the hon. member for Carleton.
It is my honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-8, which is the economic and fiscal update implementation act of 2021. The bill touches on several different topics, but I would like to focus on a few critical elements related to farmers, housing and what this bill represents overall.
For farmers, this bill quite simply is an acknowledgement that the government's approach has been wrong. It recognizes the harm of its carbon tax on farmers, but there is just one problem. The remedy does not go nearly far enough. Instead of discounting the carbon tax at the point of sale, the government is attempting to introduce a complicated rebate method. It puts an additional burden on farmers to collect their receipts, and at the end of the year they will get a fraction of what they paid in carbon tax back. A tax credit is not good enough. Farmers deserve much more than that. What is the science-based justification for treating diesel and gas differently from natural gas and propane?
I hope that all members in the House understand exactly how important farmers are to this country. When we live in cities and do the majority of our travelling by plane, if we take a look down what we see are beautiful farms covering the countryside. For many rural communities across this country, farming was the reason they sprang up, and it is the reason they continue to exist today.
Farming is one of the things Canada is known for internationally. Let me quote the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, which states, “Canada is the fifth largest exporter of agricultural and agri-food products in the world after the EU, U.S., Brazil, and China”, and “over 90% of Canada’s farmers are dependent on exports”.
Our farmers are competing with farmers from around the globe. It is a global industry, and farmers across the country, including in my riding, check the prices of global commodities, which help them determine and decide what to plant. They then follow international news to inform them of the best times to sell their products. A drought in Germany means farmers know their canola is likely to rise due to supply and demand factors.
When the carbon tax was initially announced, farmers were concerned. They knew they could not raise prices like other industries can. There was no way they could reduce the amount of fuel they were using, and increased costs come directly from their bottom line. That means they reduce the amount of money farmers can take home to their families at the end of the year, and the amount of money farmers have available to pay workers.
If it was not clear, farmers use a lot of fuel. A large tractor can hold 400 gallons of it. Thankfully, the minister understood that taxing diesel and gasoline was a non-starter, but that is not the only fuel that farmers use. Propane and natural gas are critical to farming. Natural gas and propane are cheap and efficient ways to heat and cool large buildings for many farmers, whether these are the shops they do repair work in or the places where livestock live in the cold winter months. These fuels are vital to selling most crops because of how farmers dry their products. Before something like corn can be shipped to market, it must be within a specific moisture range. It costs thousands of dollars to dry every month.
Last night, I spoke with a few farmers in my riding. They think this bill is quite clearly not doing enough. They sent me a copy of a few bills. I have a copy of a bill with me here. Just for the month of October to November, a natural gas bill for the farmer was almost $58,000. The carbon tax on that bill was $13,000. That is an unbelievable additional cost added to the monthly cost of operating that farmer's enterprise. Another farmer, Will, in my riding spends $40,000 to $50,000 some months on fuel.
This huge expense to farmers is why the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been calling on the government to rethink the carbon tax application to farms. In March, the federal government needs to understand this, and to work to lessen the negative impacts of the carbon tax on the ability of farmers in Ontario to compete in both domestic and international markets. They may have asked for our understanding because it appears the government does not understand how much damage this is doing. That is perhaps why the Minister of Agriculture felt it was appropriate to say that the carbon tax was not significant for farmers after it was introduced.
I would like to point out that, like the carbon tax, it is a common theme with the government to not listen to Canadians when developing policy choices.
This is where I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, for all of his work on the farm carbon tax file. He said the tax was crippling agriculture. Without his work, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food may have continued to believe the carbon tax was insignificant. The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South called for an exemption to the carbon tax and put forward a bill to do just that for natural gas and propane, but with an unnecessary election called, that bill died with the last Parliament.
The tax credit proposed is complicated, it is onerous and it does not make it equitable with other fuels. There is an excellent solution here to help the farmers. It is quite simple and it is not in this bill. The solution is to provide a full exemption at the point of sale.
A similar criticism can be directed at the government on the proposed tax on vacant properties with a national annual 1% tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate that is considered to be vacant or underused. That is very complicated.
In the last election, housing was a major theme. Our party, the Conservatives, put forward a plan to limit and ban foreign investors not living in or moving into Canada from purchasing homes for a two-year period. This plan was well received. Really what we are asking for is a two-year pause to let everyone take a break so we can curb some of the off-the-record demand we see for homes that are driving the prices up for everyone else.
When we talk about housing, the government likes to point to a commitment to bring in a beneficial ownership registry, but like many Canadians, I am skeptical that the government will deliver on this commitment. It is absent from this bill and the government has a long history of promising something and failing to deliver.
The bill represents a disconnect that seems to have taken hold of the government. It is a disconnect between government spending and the consequences of that spending. The only policy solution the government has is to spend more money. That is the only solution that it has proposed over these last two years. In fact, it is the only policy solution it has proposed since 2015, since coming into government.
When COVID first arrived, it was unprecedented. Although I was not in this chamber at the time, I was pleased to see all parties working together for the benefit of Canadians to make sure businesses, families and all of us had the support we needed to get through the pandemic.
However, that time has passed and experts are warning the government to stop the rampant spending and pointing to the effects that spending has on inflation. We need a credible, fiscal plan with a focus on growth, not on redistribution, that acknowledges the risk that additional spending represents to Canadians.
I believe the buck has to stop somewhere. The House cannot keep signing off on billion-dollar pieces of legislation without a plan to find some savings or a plan for how to pay for it. There needs to be a debate where we can find savings to offset some of these new expenditures, which might be worthwhile. That is the very least the government could do. In fact, I would propose that the government, for every new spending measure it brings forward, finds an offset savings somewhere else.
This mountain of debt is not the legacy of COVID that we wish to leave for our children. They deserve better than this.
1478 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
