- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Simcoe North
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $121,028.17
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today but also to follow my friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge. I appreciate the opportunity.
First, I would ask for members' indulgence to address what many members already have this morning, and that is what we are seeing happening in geopolitical affairs, in particular in Iran. As I walked home last night, we saw the colours of Iran's flag flashed on Parliament Hill, but I could not help but feel just a little embarrassed because that seems to be what the government wants to do, which is to put out more signals or do things that do not cost much money as a way to show our solidarity.
It would be okay if we were doing many other things, but let us remember that the government said it would put these colours on the Peace Tower on Sunday. That was the first thing it said it would do when 50,000 people gathered at a rally to show their solidarity with what is happening with people in Iran and those who are fighting for their fundamental freedoms. It is almost like it was the same ministers holding up the sign that said, “I stand with Ukraine,” but never following it up with concrete actions.
I have to commend at least one member from that side of the House while I have the floor, the member for Willowdale, who had the courage to go on TV and say that the government has not done enough. I hope that more members in the House feel empowered to speak on behalf of themselves and the issues they feel strongly about.
Now let us talk about Bill C-30 while we are here. This is the temporary enhancement to the goods and services tax, the HST tax credit. I want to commend our chair for getting this bill through Parliament very well. It was a very lively committee with the minister. It is always a pleasure to have her there. I cannot say many questions were answered, but it was nice to see some co-operation on all sides of the aisle to get this bill back to the House in short order.
Inflation is at a 40-year high. The Bank of Canada says inflation crushes the most vulnerable people the hardest. That is why it is important we get inflation under control. I do believe this measure is supported on all sides of the House. It is important that we stand together with our most vulnerable. This tax credit would help those individuals.
The government needs to be doing more to help Canadians with inflation. This is why I was surprised the Deputy Prime Minister could not answer the question at committee yesterday of whether this initiative would lead to more inflation. I was not asking the question of whether it would lead to more inflation so we would not do this policy. It was so that maybe the government could take other steps elsewhere to reduce its impact on inflation.
We are paying for this with more debt. We are still in a deficit. Let us remember it was not long ago that people were questioning spending in this House and other people were saying it was irresponsible not to spend because interest rates were so low. Now, interest rates are much higher, so the cost of the debt we are putting on future generations is incredible.
The PBO says interest costs could potentially double if the trajectory of interest rates continues. That is a lot of money that is not going to be able to be spent on social programs in this country, programs that everyone relies on: health care, helping seniors, making sure that our social security safety nets are there for generations.
At committee yesterday, we were told that the government has a new-found religion called fiscal restraint. I think the young kids these days would say that fiscal restraint has entered the chat. However, I am not really sure if that is going to happen. Let us let history be our guide. This is a government that is addicted to debt and spending. It is placing an incredible burden on our future generations.
The solution to every problem that the Liberal government sees is more spending. The government has grown spending by well over 8% every year since coming into office. In fact, its spending is up 25% this year when compared to pre-COVID levels. Now we are to believe that, from this time going forward, the government is going to keep spending growth to 2%. I find that very hard to believe. In fact, some would say it is very unlikely.
If we were at a party and saw a teenager going back to the punch bowl and could not tear them away, and all of a sudden that teenager had one last big swig and said, “That's it. I'm done,” would we believe that youngster? I do not think so.
The dirty secret of the government right now is that it is awash in revenues. It has never made as much money as it is right now. The NDP want to discuss windfall tax profits from those corporations that are having record profits this year, but let us talk about a windfall tax on the government. Why does it not give some of that tax money back to Canadians or maybe cut some taxes to begin with? Every week that goes by it is breaking a record for the amount of money it is bringing in due to inflation.
I would submit the government does not need more money with additional tax increases. It has to provide relief to Canadians by either cutting taxes or providing additional relief. Germany, the U.K., France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Australia and I could go on, but I think I only have four minutes left and I would exhaust that. These are all countries that have reduced taxes on fuel or paused tax increases. They have provided relief for people with energy bills in their countries. We are approaching a cold season. It is going to be hard for many Canadians across this country to heat their homes, yet they hear the government talk about how important it is that we pay a carbon tax.
Let us just take a break. We do not have to be all or nothing. If gasoline is at two dollars a litre, maybe the carbon tax could be reduced to zero. If gasoline is $1.25 a litre, perhaps the government could come up with a much lower number to be applied. It should at least give us a break. At two dollars a litre, people cannot afford it. It is not as though people have a choice. Many people have to put a certain amount of gas in their car every week to get to work, to take the kids to soccer practice and activities or to get to the grocery store. Not everybody lives near a subway line. Not everybody lives with public transit right around the corner. They cannot walk anywhere. We do not have horse and buggies everywhere, at least not in many parts of this province. Although some very wonderful people rely on that mode of transportation, it is not realistic for all Canadians.
Therefore, let us acknowledge that people are hurting right now. Instead of lowering our taxes like our peers, our answer to higher energy prices is to make them higher. The carbon tax is inflationary. The Bank of Canada admits this, but the government does not seem to want to answer that question. What is it that our government knows that all of these other countries somehow do not know? We are the only country in the world that is choosing to make energy more expensive.
As I conclude, I want to say that, on our side of the House, we were pleased to see this bill move forward quickly because it is going to provide relief, albeit a small relief, to Canadians in need. I appreciate that opportunity.
I would also like to say that I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, whom I very much look forward to hearing on this matter as well.
I welcome any questions from my hon. colleagues.
1413 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 1:40:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this chamber to talk about the Conservative opposition day motion on a very important issue affecting Canadians: affordability and the cost of living.
Before I talk about the motion, I would just like to set some context for individuals who are here. Food prices have increased 9.7%; in many cases fuel is up, depending on what time it is measured, almost 65% to 70%; in some cases diesel has doubled in about 12 months; and retail prices, the prices paid for clothing and other goods, are also significantly higher.
It is also important to recognize that we were on an incredibly high trajectory of inflation before the war in Ukraine started. Inflation was at a 25-year high of 5.5% in February, before the Russian Federation's invasion in Ukraine. To suggest that it is all explained by the war misses the point that we were on a quite high inflation trajectory before that war started.
For full disclosure, I will concede to the members across the way that there are multiple reasons for inflation. Of course there are supply chain issues and of course there is the war. However, there are also serious structural issues that are leading to inflation. By its definition, a consumption tax is inflationary. The Bank of Canada even says this. At least half a percentage point of inflation can be attributed to the carbon tax, according to the Bank of Canada.
The challenge that I have, or perhaps some of the members on this side of the House have, is that every time questions about inflation or costs of living or affordability have been raised, they are waved away and explained away by referring to these external factors that are out of the government's control. I do not believe that to be true. Yes, there are things that are outside of the government's control, and I just mentioned a few of them, but there are simple things that the government could do to provide immediate relief to Canadians.
The challenge is about not acknowledging that inflation is perhaps not transitory. If we take a long enough view, everything is transitory. Even life is transitory, if we take a long enough view. The challenge is that the facts are changing on the ground. The government is now out of step with the rest of the world because it has yet to acknowledge the challenge of inflation and the tools that it has to deal with it.
In fact, just last week President Biden wrote an op-ed to the American people. In it he vowed to take action on inflation immediately and provided a three-point plan on how the federal government in the United States was going to deal with it, acknowledging that of course the central banks have a role to play.
Secretary Yellen said last week in an interview that she was wrong about inflation, that inflation was persisting longer than they had thought. We have also heard this from the Federal Reserve chair in the U.S. We have also heard it from Bank of Canada officials, who admitted that they had all underestimated inflation, but we have not heard it from the Liberal government. The government refuses to even acknowledge that it might be behind the curve.
I think Canadians would appreciate a little bit of humility in hearing, “Look, we were a little slow on the inflation front, but we have tools that we can use to combat inflation.” The question I have every day is this: How long does inflation need to persist or how high does inflation need to get before the government realizes that it must act?
We have put forward an opposition day motion, which I think some would even call an omnibus motion, with some interesting ideas. In the interest of constructive discussion in this House, there may be some ideas that individuals feel strongly opposed to, but they are ideas. The government could feel free to take any of these ideas it might like and act on them. We do not need to pass this entire motion. It does not sound as if we will have support from some other parties, but certainly there are some reasonable ideas. I would like to highlight a couple that speak to me.
With respect to suspending the GST on fuel, both regular gasoline and diesel, the price for diesel has doubled in 12 to 16 months. That also means that the HST the government receives on diesel has doubled. The revenue the government is making has doubled because the price has doubled, and it is applied right before people pay the final price. In fact, the government has never made as much money as it is making right now. That is why I have significant concerns about the idea that the answer to inflation is for the government to tax companies more so it can take that money and do something with it. The government does not need that money. It has never made as much money as it is making right now.
If we consider the budget of 2021 and what we believe the government will be making in revenues over the next five years and compare it to budget 2022 and the revenue it is going to be receiving now, it has found an extra $170 billion. The question is this: What is it doing with it? Why is it not returning that money to Canadians? It is coming from Canadians in the first place.
I think we have to be a little more realistic and pragmatic, because increasing taxes on companies is not going to all of a sudden solve our inflation problem. We have a bunch of extra revenue now and we still have inflation, so making the government bigger is not the answer to our worries.
The hon. colleague from Foothills talked about fertilizer, and because of the significant farming community in Simcoe North, I will mention it just for a moment.
I have phone calls every day, and I visit farms to talk to farmers in my riding. They are all saying they want to help Ukraine and do their part and that they do not mind paying a fertilizer tariff on fertilizer that is purchased after March 2. However, they prepaid for fertilizer in December and are still being hit with this tariff. The government did not even understand the impacts of that tariff before it brought it in, nor did it have very clear and defined rules, which shows a lack of understanding or an unwillingness to understand the farming community.
There is an element of this motion that talks about money laundering. Some members will wonder why we are talking about money laundering and will think it is incredible to be talking about money laundering when it is such a long-term problem. Well, the best time to plant a tree, if not yesterday, is today. The Cullen commission is coming out with an 1,800-page report, which I hope becomes public very soon, about the challenges of money laundering in British Columbia, but it is going to expose a significant challenge nationally that we must take head-on. We have to understand the impact of money laundering, especially on our real estate sector, because it distorts our real estate markets.
In Orillia, which is in Simcoe North, we have seen a 300% increase in the price of housing in six years. That is unsustainable. I believe some of that is due to the distorting effects of money laundering in our big cities, because people are now moving out and looking at other places.
It is in this context that I think most of the ideas in our motion are quite reasonable. We may not expect the motion to pass, but I hope we have a great debate and I would welcome the government to take any of these ideas as its own.
In closing, I will make a brief comment about leadership. True leadership is recognizing that perhaps one's original plan needs to change when the facts on the ground change. True leadership is showing a level of humility by acknowledging that humans can sometimes get things wrong. There are some interesting examples from the previous government, but I will only mention three: It decided to change its mind and tax income trusts in the face of different facts changing on the ground; it reversed its decision on interest income deductibility; and when the global financial crisis hit, it reversed its ideological position on running deficits and saved Canada from significant financial ruin.
I am thankful to have been afforded this opportunity today.
1464 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
