- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Simcoe North
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $121,028.17
- Government Page
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
- 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
- Dec/12/22 12:36:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time.
17 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to split my time.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Apr/4/22 3:31:32 p.m.
- Watch
moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Monday, March 21, 2022, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to members this afternoon. I would like to mention that I am splitting my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
The world is different now than it was just a year ago. We have an unprovoked invasion and war by the Russian Federation against Ukraine that threatens our global security and shattered peace in Europe, inflation is anything but transitory and COVID restrictions are lifting across Canada, giving hope to our nation that we can return to some normalcy. However, it is in this global context that we must consider the budget.
Our committee heard testimony from a number of witnesses about what they would like to see in this year's budget. The budget can provide some opportunities and can deal with some challenges that our country faces. There is no question that our government needed to provide unprecedented levels of support to Canadians and businesses during the early days of the pandemic. However, as pandemic concerns abate through our greater understanding of the virus, we must be prepared to evolve our approach to government spending.
Closer to home, Canada must put its own economic house in order so that we can respond to the changing global context. We have to re-establish Canada as a destination for investment, and supply the world with ethical, conflict-free energy. If we want to stop Mr. Putin's war machine, we must help our allies reduce their dependence on Russian energy by ensuring that our energy can reach global markets. Furthermore, we can create a secure North American energy market that uses all sources of Canadian energy, including renewables, traditional fuels and nuclear energy. That is how we will help defeat Mr. Putin.
At home, the number one issue affecting Canadians is affordability. At the grocery stores, at the gas pumps and at retail shopping locations, prices keep going up and up. Our purchasing power is shrinking faster than at any other point in the last 30 years. This is a silent tax that hurts the economically vulnerable and those on fixed incomes, such as seniors, the most.
There are several ways the government can address this, and we heard some of them at committee.
We can reform competition policies and help lower prices for consumers by increasing competition in key sectors, which includes banking, air travel and telecommunications. If we believe excess profits exist in these industries, the answer is not additional taxes to increase government revenues. Rather, consumers should capture these excess profits in the form of lower prices.
We should reform the one-for-one rule on regulatory burden. Instead of taking out a regulatory rule for every one we bring in, why do we not just cut the regulatory burden by 50% over five years? Let us be ambitious.
We can quicken the implementation of the beneficial ownership registry for Canadian corporations that look to the Canadian market to hide assets in the form of money laundering. Most of those laundered funds end up in real estate, which distorts our local real estate markets. Just last week, the Bank of Montreal indicated that in six years there has been a threefold increase in housing prices in Orillia, which is in my riding. How can we expect young Canadians to look at this country and think that home ownership is in the cards for them?
We need to focus on economic growth. We have seen an unprecedented growth in the size of government by every available measure, but at this point we must focus on the private sector to take advantage of the entrepreneurial spirit of Canadians. The government has seemed more interested in wealth redistribution than it is on underlying economic growth, and this must change. We do not need new superclusters or national consultations distorted by well-connected lobbyists and rent-seekers. We must create an environment where businesses of all sizes can thrive. Businesses that grow create jobs and pay taxes.
An overarching opportunity following the pandemic is the rapid deployment of high-speed Internet across all regions of the country, and that is very important to the people in Simcoe North. It is nice that, as we heard just today, the government might be subsidizing and working with those who are of low income so they can access high-speed Internet, but this really will not help those who do not have access to high-speed Internet in the first place.
Tax policy that penalizes success also drives investment away. It is not a surprise that in the year following the changes the government made to the marginal tax rates in 2016, the government received far less revenue than it anticipated. These short-sighted policies can drive businesses, jobs and tax revenues to other jurisdictions. This hurts Canada through lower tax revenues that are used to fund social programs enjoyed by all Canadians: health care, retirement security and, of course, education.
Furthermore, industry-specific tax policy is a very poor idea. The government should set a consistent rate applicable to all sectors. Capital can move freely across borders, and in some sectors, like financial services, companies can shift operations and profits to other jurisdictions. Additional taxes on oligopolies are only going to result in higher prices for consumers or lower levels of investment.
We must carefully understand the negative impacts of certain tax policy changes. For example, the luxury boat and car tax we heard at committee will only increase the sales of these products in foreign markets, notably the United States. This will drive investment, jobs and taxes out of Canada with very little revenue increase for federal coffers. My riding has one of the largest freshwater marinas in the world, plus another dozen or so other marinas. This is going to take jobs out of my community and will hurt the people of Simcoe North.
When it comes to fiscal responsibility, now is the time to make a new path. The Bank of Canada indicates that the economy is robust and is operating near full capacity, which means additional fiscal expansion will just create inflationary pressures. These warnings are coming from all corners of the country. It has been almost 10 years since the federal government underwent any serious scrutiny of its spending, and it is unhealthy for an organization of its size to go this long without reviewing its expenditures.
It is even more important now to rationalize our non-core expenditures to focus on priority areas, including our national defence. We must support our allies, such as Ukraine and those in NATO, and we need to be able to defend our Arctic sovereignty. Pulling forward defence expenditures to displace other planned spending is a sacrifice that Canadians are willing to make in the face of increasing threats from the Russian Federation.
Additionally, the government is going to see a windfall of revenue resulting from persistent inflation, higher-than-expected oil prices and, yes, higher taxes. These excess revenues should be used to reduce the size of the deficit or provide relief to Canadian families in the form of tax holidays. Significant deficit spending at all stages of the economic cycle will have a protracted impact on the fiscal sustainability of government finances. It will threaten our AAA credit rating, which is only going to drive up the cost of borrowing. We cannot continue to erode the country's fiscal position with no plan to rein in unnecessary expenditures. The ability of future governments to deal with the emergencies of their time depends on the responsibility of our government today.
We also must think about the overarching regulatory framework in the country with respect to financial regulation. We are still waiting for open banking regulations. We are still waiting for the government to get serious about innovation in the financial services sector. However, we need to consider asking our agencies to get back to basics. The emerging housing affordability issue and related financial system vulnerability expose serious concerns about the effectiveness of our regulatory system in Canada. We have agencies on one day saying one thing about the housing market, and on the next day, a different agency says the complete opposite. That cannot be left to continue. We also need to make sure we have the right people and HR strategy to attract those who have knowledge about the financial services sector to help us through this transition.
Finally, there are a few items I would like put forward that we heard at committee that the government should be considering.
We talked about high-speed Internet. We need to re-establish the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. We have to fund the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. We have to implement a two-year ban on purchases of real estate by non-resident Canadians. Let us take the wind out of the sails of this red-hot property market. We have to follow through on the existing mental health and addictions commitments for an opioid addiction strategy. Finally, we need to ensure that we can introduce employee-owned trusts that will help our business owners transition business interests to employees. I hope we will make some headway on affordable housing and all kinds of housing in this budget.
1574 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
- Nov/30/21 1:33:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carleton.
I want to thank the voters of Simcoe North for placing their confidence in me to advocate on their behalf in this special place. I thank all the volunteers who helped out on my campaign.
I want to recognize my fellow candidates and their volunteers for supporting the political process and making our democracy stronger.
I will remember that, standing here, I represent the views of all my constituents and will balance all sides of an issue for the best interests of my community and our country. The recent months of knocking on thousands of doors and talking to constituents has informed my views.
I must also thank Mrs. Downer's grade five class who welcomed me to my new role with letters reminding me of the continued need to work on truth and reconciliation with indigenous peoples.
I have large shoes to fill. Great people from multiple parties have stood in my place before me: Paul Devillers who was an excellent representative for Simcoe North; and, of course, the great Doug Lewis, who guided me through both my nomination and general election campaigns. Most recent, Bruce Stanton, a man of integrity and who has immense respect for this institution, served Simcoe North admirably for almost 16 years.
Many of us would not be here without the love and support of family and friends, so I would thank my parents for providing a supportive environment at every opportunity; my sunny ways gang; and, of course, my amazing spouse, Jane. In fact, I like to say that I am already an expert in bipartisan compromise because if my spouse was in this chamber, she would be sitting across the aisle. There are also many people who took an interest in my professional career development over the years, such as Hugh Moncrieff, for which I am grateful.
My political mentor was the late Jim Flaherty, a man well known in this place for his fierce loyalty, great oratory skill, deft handling of crisis and an unwavering commitment to public service. In a letter, Minister Flaherty once challenged me to not forget the importance of public issues and to seize the opportunity to change the world for the better, sometimes for individuals and other times the public. He taught me the value of fiscal responsibility and public service.
It is with that context that I am proud to take my seat in this 44th Parliament and discuss the Speech from the Throne.
I have the benefit of having been in the Department of Finance during the last major economic crisis, the great recession. During that time, we learned that stimulus spending should be temporary, targeted and timely. With the Liberal government, we are batting about one in three. Even the great musician, Meatloaf, would not be satisfied.
Right now, economic growth is projected to be 5% in 2021 and 5% in 2022. This is hardly the time for additional spending. The Speech from the Throne lays out a $100 billion of new spending, which will be deficit financed. The truth, when it comes to debt, is that we cannot say no and we just cannot help ourselves. All levels of government, persons and corporations have never been more in debt. If debt was a drug, we would be addicts. We should care about this because of what it costs to service the debt and how it impacts our ability to deliver services to Canadians.
If interest rates rise to 2019 levels, the costs to service the federal debt will go up almost 60% or about $13 billion per year. That is before we include any measures in the throne speech. This money has to come from somewhere. It will either be taxed in the economy, services will be cut or we will have to take on additional debt.
This additional spending is creating a significant risk for our economy and for future generations. I have two young children, Davie and Cooper. I worry that the government they inherit will be permanently impaired from dealing with the challenges of their time. Our spending decisions today will impact future generations from paying for their social services on which all Canadians rely: our health care, education, supporting our seniors or even being prepared for the next pandemic or environmental catastrophe.
I would ask my colleagues to imagine for a moment if the government had been in power during the great recession. We would have spent multiples of what was spent and it would have meant we would have had less fiscal capacity to deal with today's pandemic. As it was, the government spent almost $100 billion of money we did not have before the pandemic. It spent that money when unemployment was near record lows and the economy was growing well.
When times are good, it appears the answer is to spend money. When times are bad, the answer is to spend more money. The government spends money with no regard for the consequences for the future. Now some economists are warning the government to take its foot off the pedal, that we do not need to keep spending and that it may only make inflation worse.
Of course, the government needed to step up and help people during the pandemic. The government was right to do so and to support Canadians most affected. However, the spending had its time. It is now time to refocus on growing the economy and expanding the productive capacity of Canadians and businesses.
We could build up rural broadband much faster than the current plan, implement comprehensive tax reform, focus on productivity, economic growth, the labour shortage or even reduce internal trade barriers. All of these are important economic drivers that were absent from the throne speech. It is unfortunate that we are not here debating which programs work and which programs no longer serve their intended purpose. If the government were proposing to trim back in some areas to fund these new priority areas, we would welcome that discussion.
We have to be willing sacrifice and give some things up to focus on our priorities. Spending on everything is an easy way to govern; it is politically expedient.
One would think that with all this money being spent, nobody is being left behind. However, in my riding, there are small business owners, including a bowling alley, that find themselves on the outside looking in. They see other individuals and businesses and, in some cases, reports of even organized criminals taking advantage of the COVID supports, but Andy and Kathy cannot get the help they need to keep their business running.
Another example is independent travel agents. There are about 12,000 independent travel agents in Canada, 85% of whom are women. Throughout this pandemic, they have been on the outside looking in. It does not look like they qualify for the new COVID pandemic supports relief funding, even when the government is encouraging people not to fly. They have been overlooked for supports from the beginning.
We did have money to give billions of dollars to publicly traded companies. We gave hundreds of millions to air carriers. However, we told some of our smallest businesses that they were not important enough. Therefore, when the government does spend, it does not seem to do it all that well. It is important for the government to be measured, focused and effective, but, unfortunately, we do not see much of a plan.
If my colleagues are unpersuaded by what I have to say, I will offer a quote from a well known Globe and Mail columnist who said, “Don't be fooled.” The Speech from the Throne is “many things, but it's devoid of vision for an economic rebuild.”
We need to do everything we can to unleash the economic opportunities for all Canadians and do so in a way that spends within our means. If we provide a coherent economic vision for our country, we will be far less reliant on government spending to support our recovery.
It is through increased economic activity of the private sector, small businesses and innovators that we will find wealth and prosperity for Canadians. We will not find prosperity by relying on excess government spending that will only restrict future generations. Our children's future depends on it. In fact, many times in the chamber we have talked about intergenerational equity with respect to the environment. I would submit that this same passion should be brought when we talk about fiscal responsibility.
I believe all members in the chamber want the same thing. We want to leave our country in a better place for our children and grandchildren. I look forward to working with members from all sides of the House on this shared objective.
1479 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
