- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Simcoe North
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $121,028.17
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely excellent question. I see that there are expanded powers for two ministers. I trust at least one of them. However, the Governor in Council provides a more fulsome review. Maybe even an external body that is removed from politics would be the right way to go.
As I have said, we never know whom we will end up having as a minister, and I think we should take a bit more power away from one individual and spread it out to a greater group.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague may be happily surprised to hear Zellers is returning in a few locations. That may be some welcome news.
In any event, the world is different today. Geopolitics changes over time and regimes change. That is why we need principles under which to look at all transactions.
I agree about entities that are controlled by or influenced by a foreign power, for example, whether it is hostile or not. A hostile power today might not be a hostile power tomorrow, and one that is not today could be one tomorrow. Any time there is a lack of governance and transparency, the government should be on high alert and scrutinizing the transaction to the absolute highest degree.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have very much enjoyed getting to work with the member on the finance committee. He brings many insightful comments forward.
Of course, we think the thresholds the government is currently using to review transactions are likely too low. I would refer the government to recommendations from the previous industry committee. The member rightly recognizes that there are likely more transactions that ought to fall under greater scrutiny to ensure we protect our national interests and the interests of critical resources or materials. He was alluding to jobs and headquarters too, which I think are also a consideration for the government to make sure it is reviewing.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
In 2017, the government did not request a security review of Norsat when it was purchased by Hytera Communications, which is partially owned by the People’s Republic of China. Just recently, at the end of 2022, it was exposed that the government awarded a hardware contract for RCMP communications equipment to a Norsat subsidiary. The United States blacklisted Hytera because it “poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons”.
Where was Canada's review? Was Canada informed by the United States about its findings? Did Canada do the due diligence we would expect it would normally do before a contract like this is awarded, or maybe even before a transaction is approved?
There are more examples, but members can see that our approach can actually weaken our relationships with our partners. We are not holding up our end of the bargain when it comes to national security and defence, and I worry that some countries think we are not taking it very seriously anymore.
I want to talk a bit about the governance we see at some state-owned enterprises and some of the entities that are owned, controlled or heavily influenced by foreign governments. The issue is that the objectives of these entities are not necessarily commercially minded first. They have some other interests potentially at play. They might be interested in locking up the supply of critical minerals. They might be interested in trying to get information, whether that is intellectual property, communications or information about national defence. Proper governance is important for ensuring we have faith in a free market. If these entities are not playing by the same rules and the same principles, we cannot trust all of their motives. We have to be skeptical.
In the last Parliament, a very good proposal was made by the industry committee that when a state-owned enterprise is involved, there is no threshold too low to trigger a review. That is a reasonable approach. When there is a state-owned enterprise involved or an entity that is heavily influenced by a foreign power or could be heavily influenced by a foreign power, the government needs to think about the best interests of Canada.
Who knows what these critical assets will be in the future? I am not sure 20 or 30 years ago people realized that lithium would be as important as it is now, but what about water in the future? Is that something we should be discussing now, or should we have some more flexibility to discuss that?
The other issue is assets versus shares. One can sell a business by selling assets and one can sell a business by selling the shares in the company that owns the assets, but right now we are only looking at issues where shares are purchased. We are exposing ourselves to a loophole that companies and entities can plan around, especially those that have hostile foreign interests.
There are some expanded powers for the minister, and that is okay if we believe and trust the minister. I think the minister in this case is a wonderful individual, and I do trust his judgment. However, we might get a dud in the future. We need to make sure we have proper oversight of the minister, so the Governor in Council and cabinet should have expanded power. Maybe there should even be a third body.
We are required to be stewards of our assets in this country. Defence and security sometimes is more costly. We might not be able to sell to the highest bidder if it undermines our national security. We need to be working to secure Canada's best interests for her future. I hope that the minister and the government are open to amendments.
I appreciate the fact that this has been brought forward as a stand-alone piece of legislation. It will enable the committee to do some good work, I believe, and hear from some important stakeholders. However, I view this legislation as merely a starting point for a conversation and hope to see it enhanced at committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important issue this morning. Before I close, I need to say a very happy birthday to Amanda Philp today, who I am sure is watching this and will see it on repeat a number of times.
743 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House to talk about a very important issue. Today we are talking about investment, national defence and security. The world is a far different place today than it was even a year ago, and there has been an concerted effort by hostile foreign powers to undermine western democracies, undermine our national security, undermine our economic interests and undermine democracy itself.
Before I continue, I want to mention that I am going to be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Langley—Aldergrove.
The west has basically been sleepwalking into the realignment of global power, and if we do not wake up, our lives and interests will be impaired, or worse, children across the world may not have the same freedoms that our children have in our democracies, like independence and the other freedoms we enjoy.
Not only have we allowed nefarious actions to occur right under our noses, but we have actually helped fund this global realignment. In 2018, Canada gave $250 million to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is largely viewed as expanding China’s influence and power in the world. We have been funding it. This is the context that we have to keep in mind when we think about Bill C-34 and this investment act.
These are largely viewed as some of the more significant amendments to this act in well over a decade. The bill provides new ministerial authorities and focuses on special business sectors of interest to the country. I give the government credit for bringing this forward as a stand-alone piece of legislation that will allow for proper scrutiny in this House, but I want to talk about a few issues.
The first is reciprocity. A fundamental principle in all trade or any real commercial relationship is that each party gets something and gives something in return. There is some exchange of equal value. This is not necessarily the case with what has been happening in global trade with Canada. Certainly it is not the case with how companies and entities invest in Canada.
Canadian companies want to invest in other countries or companies housed in other countries, but Canada does not have that opportunity. Canadian companies do not have that opportunity. It is always puzzling to understand why Canada allows companies and entities that have links to foreign governments to invest in and purchase Canadian assets when Canadian companies themselves are not allowed to make the same investments in those other countries.
The fundamental principle of reciprocity does not exist when Canadian firms cannot make the same investments that we allow companies from other countries to make here. Sometimes those companies are either owned or heavily influenced by a foreign power. Whether that foreign power is hostile or not, geopolitics changes. As we have seen in the last year, things have shifted significantly.
I submit that some of these companies and countries, frankly, are laughing at us all the way to the bank. I am beginning to think that they might think we are suckers. What I am worried about is that they are right. We do not have to look hard to find some examples of what I am talking about that make us scratch our heads.
552 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Chinese state-owned enterprises, could the member reflect on the threshold he believes might be reasonable? I believe the last committee in the previous Parliament indicated that a much lower threshold, maybe even zero, should be considered.
42 words
- 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
- Mar/4/22 1:00:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, it is very nice to see you in the chair. I hope we will see more of you there. It is a pleasure working with you at committee, but it is nice to see you in the chair today.
It is nice to intervene with my colleagues on Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation bill, but before I get to that, it seems rather appropriate to acknowledge the devastation that we see in Ukraine. What we see in the unprovoked aggression of the Russian Federation in Europe is heartbreaking. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the government have my full support to continue to respond in the harshest of terms. I would support them to take an even more aggressive approach and I look forward to a Canadian response that includes an increase in our humanitarian efforts and aid.
I have listened to many colleagues speak in the chamber about Bill C-8. We studied the bill at committee. I take this job very seriously. On its face, there are many items in Bill C-8 that seem rather reasonable, such as measures to support educators on an annual basis by increasing tax relief and measures to extend the COVID supports provided to businesses. How we will procure additional vaccines in the future is also addressed.
There are other areas that I have significant concerns about, in particular the proposed housing tax and the carbon rebate that the government has proposed for farmers. However, before I turn to these issues, I would like to address an overall objection that I have to the bill.
Legislation is constantly being sent to the House that has significant amounts of spending attached to it. We are never told how it will be funded, because the assumption is that these bills will be funded with debt. The assumption is that there is no limit to the debt this country can absorb and that when we want to fund our programs, the answer is to just add them to the deficit.
This is not sustainable. I am appealing to all my colleagues that we must hold the government accountable for its spending plans. If members agree with all the expenditures in the bill, that is completely fine, but unless the government is also going to propose areas where it will cut back in order to fund priorities, I cannot support this legislation. We are missing an opportunity to set priorities. There will be no objection from me on spending on the priorities that all Canadians rely on, including health care, education and social support programs, including those programs for our low-income and most vulnerable members of society, and of course our seniors.
We cannot just keep piling on debt and pretend that there are no consequences for future generations. On this basis alone, I am against the legislation, and until the government brings forward a proposal to review its spending and shows how any new spending will be met with reductions in other areas, it will be hard to persuade me to support future bills.
Until the government gets serious about setting priorities for its spending, we will continue to see difficulty passing legislation through the House. I think there is a reasonable debate we can have about what those priorities are, but I also want to know where it would like to cut back. I agree with a former Liberal leader who indicated that it was hard to set priorities. That is right, and if we have 100 priorities, I submit that we have none at all.
The Bank of Canada raised interest rates just two days ago, and it is projected that the bank will raise interest rates many more times before the end of the year. The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a projection indicating that the federal government alone could see interest payments on its debt increase to $40 billion a year annually. That is $40 billion a year that we are not spending on health care, that we are not transferring to the provinces for education, that we are not using to grow an inclusive economy.
A social democrat friend of mine recently told me that social democrats should care about fiscal responsibility because it means that governments do not waste in some areas so that they can spend in priority areas.
Let us think about that. We could be having a debate right now about how we could spend $40 billion. We could be debating pharmacare, a universal basic income or doubling or tripling the support for certain vulnerable groups in society. We could also be debating about how to provide much-needed tax relief for Canadians to keep the burden of taxation low on families and individuals, especially in an inflationary environment.
The Bank of Canada tells us the economy is robust. It tells us that the economy is operating at capacity. That also means new spending will have upward pressures on inflation. Many economists are recommending to the government that it review its spending and reconsider its proposals to introduce new spending plans, because at this point in the business cycle, new spending will have upward pressures on inflation, and we know the budget coming before us in a month or so will introduce new spending.
Last year's budget introduced almost $100 billion over three years, and curiously, I did not see one additional dollar for health care. At a time when health care expenditures in provinces are going up without any end in sight, at a time in a pandemic when health care spending is of the utmost importance, the government has not shown an approach that would see an increase in spending on health care.
Now I will turn to Bill C-8, and specifically to the two proposals I wanted to mention today that we had challenges with. We have just heard one of them in the recent intervention: the proposed underused housing tax for foreign purchasers or foreign owners. If we think a 1% tax is going to have any impact on purchasing behaviour or increase the level of supply across this country, we are sorely mistaken. When an asset price rises by 30% or 40% in a year, a 1% tax is not going to change somebody's behaviour and will not deter money launderers, so we put forward a reasonable amendment, which was to introduce a temporary ban to provide a reprieve on foreign purchases of Canadian real estate for two years.
This was a campaign commitment of both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in the last election. The Liberals are famous for making promises, but they typically make two kinds of promises: those they intend to keep and those they hope we forget about. Canadians want to know whether this is a commitment the government is walking away from.
With respect to the carbon tax as it relates to farmers, I have heard from farmers in my riding and across the country that the rebate does not go nearly far enough. I had one farmer send me a bill for $13,000, just in carbon tax, for natural gas to dry their product. We need to provide farmers with relief. They are the ones who feed our cities. They cannot afford additional taxes.
A carbon tax is supposed to do two things. It is supposed to raise revenue for the government and it is supposed to change behaviour. However, sometimes there are no alternatives available for changed behaviour, and with prices going up somewhere between 30% and 40% over the last year on natural gas and fuel across the country, the outcomes the carbon tax is hoping to achieve are already being achieved. The government needs to provide much-needed relief to farmers, but it also needs to reconsider raising the carbon tax on April 1 of this year, because in and of itself, this is an inflationary pressure.
I look forward to questions and comments.
1336 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
- Feb/7/22 3:06:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, white-collar criminals from around the globe love to launder their money in Canada. Experts say it is a billion-dollar-a-year industry and growing, and much of it ends up in our real estate, which drives up the cost of housing. In 2021, government agencies, including FINTRAC, reduced their real estate money laundering audits by 64%.
Does the government take money laundering seriously or are we telling global criminals that Canada is open for business?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
