- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Simcoe North
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $121,028.17
- Government Page
- Oct/31/23 2:39:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government's recent announcement is a comedy in the making. The Liberals said they could not deviate from the carbon tax plan. They said that extreme weather, hurricanes, floods and fires demanded that they quadruple the carbon tax. They said anybody who challenged it was a Luddite. They said people get more in rebates than they pay, except last week they said that pausing the tax will make life more affordable.
Canadians are realizing the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, so why will he not just cut the tax on all forms of home heating for everybody this winter?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 10:45:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will consider any recommendation that sees the energy bills of Canadians reduced.
In addition, if the member wants to talk about profiteering corporations, I am not sure how a windfall tax is going to lower inflation for Canadians. However, I do support reviews by the Competition Tribunal and other independent officers as to whether there is unnecessary profiteering or price gouging going on. These are officers and agents of the country. We should be listening to them and taking their advice. There is a grocery study happening at committee. The Competition Tribunal is also looking at the grocery study. If we want to do more of that, I would be open to that as well.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:50:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member believes that there is collusion in the gasoline price market, but that would be a very serious accusation.
I get that this government does not want to listen to ideas from this side of the House, but perhaps it might be persuaded by the former Bank of Canada governor, who said that in order to tame inflation, we need to get oil prices down.
Various taxes account for almost 60¢ per litre of gasoline. How much higher does gasoline need to go before this government realizes there is a problem?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 2:49:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today is the day that the government finally releases its secret plan to fight inflation. It is so secret that there are no new measures in the plan, just a re-listing of programs that are already indexed to inflation. Curiously absent is any relief from one of the key drivers of inflation: gasoline and fuel prices.
Why does the government continually ignore calls to provide immediate relief to Canadians by lowering the taxes on fuel and gasoline?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 1:54:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps this will expose a slight difference in approach between the Conservatives and the NDP on this issue. We believe that cutting taxes at the pump by the government will reduce prices for consumers, as evidenced by some actions by provincial governments, including the Government of Alberta and the soon-to-be Government of Ontario.
I do not believe that increasing taxes on companies and giving the federal government more money is going to solve our inflation crisis. I would just point out that when companies pay dividends, most of those dividends go to Canadians, pensioners and elderly individuals who are living on a fixed income, so companies that are making money and paying dividends happen to be a very good thing for Canadians.
126 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
- Feb/9/22 4:53:05 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about subsidies to the oil and gas industry, we need to have a much more fulsome and honest debate about what represents a subsidy. The truth is that the oil and gas sector represents a significant economic driver for this country and has provided much of the wealth, economic progress and productivity that we have seen in this country over the last generations.
I would propose, in addition to considering all spending measures, that it has been over 10 years since the government has done any kind of review of its spending through any kind of efficiency review. There is plenty of money for the government to look at to see where we can find savings to spend on the priority areas. As I mentioned, there might be some really good priorities that we should be funding, but we can find the savings for that, going forward.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
