SoVote

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/21/22 12:56:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just to follow up on my colleague's question, I think it is something Conservatives traditionally have always said, which is to give big business and the ultrarich the tax breaks and they will create the jobs. They believe in the trickle-down theories. I am wondering if my colleague could provide any sort of report or evidence that clearly shows that this is, in fact, the case, because that is not my understanding. Conservatives continue to espouse that and I do not think it is a fair contribution to the debate, unless they can substantiate their comments.

100 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

Mar/21/22 12:57:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question again. We look at the federal budget from 2017 and it talks about how much revenue was gained from the tax increase on the wealthiest Canadians. It was one-third of what the government projected, so it received far less revenue than it thought it would because people left. If we increase taxes on large businesses that can easily shift profits and operations overseas, we will find that they will leave this country and we will have less investment.

88 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC)

Mar/21/22 12:58:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this motion put forward by the NDP, the content of which borders on the ridiculous: It sounds like it was written by a 4th-grade student. We certainly agree that we are experiencing a cost of living crisis. There is no mistaking that. In fact, the Conservatives were the first to speak out against the skyrocketing prices Canadians have been and still are facing, whether it is the price of gasoline, groceries or other consumer goods. However, the NDP seems oblivious to what caused these price increases. In my opinion, the remedies it is proposing will only exacerbate the inflation we are currently seeing. It seems to think that everything is going to be magically solved with this 3% surtax on banks and insurance companies proposed by the Liberals. It wants to extend the surtax to the New Democratic Party's arch-enemies, the oil companies, and to big box stores. I do not know why it is targeting these two economic sectors in particular, since many other economic sectors could be taxed. The first sector they are targeting provides jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country. It makes a significant contribution to Canada's economic development and the social services funded by the huge tax dollars it already pays. I am talking about the oil sector, which fortunately meets a major share of Canada's and the United States' energy needs at a time of multiple conflicts around the world and in an era where alternatives to this energy source will take us years to access. We find the NDP's decision to target big box stores even more perplexing because they are kind of the saving grace of the middle and working classes. These people and their buying power depend on the impressive supply chains that deliver essential goods across Canada. I will not sing the praises of major chains because I am from a region where people have to do whatever they can to promote buying local. However, these chains are one option for the things we need to buy. Over the past two years, local markets have been hit hard by COVID‑19. That is why chambers of commerce have worked so hard to encourage buying local as a way to help our small businesses, which have had such a tough time, stay alive. The fact is that big corporate chains play an important role in everyday life by offering products that are as affordable as possible to a clientele that does not necessarily have the financial means or the time to visit small specialty shops. We are under no illusions. Merchants are very much affected by increases in the cost of living and supply chain challenges. CP Rail employees are on strike at this very moment, for goodness' sake. Once again, we are talking about a major hurdle that will further increase the cost of living. As we know very well, basic commodities like western Canadian wheat and barley will not be able to leave Canada, inevitably preventing them from getting to processors. Retail prices are not the only ones that have gone up. Wholesale prices have risen, too. Farmers are having to spend more money on soaring energy costs. Processors are being forced to increase wages to attract and retain staff. Goodness knows I can speak to this from my own personal experience with my business. Trucking companies are struggling with both a driver shortage as well as increases in the cost of fuel, which has risen by 30% in recent months. Inevitably, merchants also have to pay to get products in a competitive market like ours. It is not always easy to increase prices quickly, since consumers have fortunately learned to use coupons, now that everyone is forced to deal with the skyrocketing price of products in stores. Profit margins are not huge at these major chains, nor at our local stores, who have to recover their loss somewhere. Prices have also increased considerably at grocery stores. I went grocery shopping on the weekend. I could not get over how much the price of butter, milk or bacon has gone up in a year. It makes no sense. People are worried that these prices will continue to go up since all the other costs in the supply chain are going up as well. I just listed a host of factors that led to these price increases over the past year. Does the NDP truly believe that the big box stores will simply accept this new proposed tax and not pass it on to the consumer? It is absolutely ridiculous to think so. Make no mistake: If there is a government-proposed tax or surtax, even with the billion dollars or more in profits that those companies are making, they will pass it on to the consumer. There is no doubt about it. That is what will happen. At the end of the day, it will still be the consumer and every socioeconomic group who will be paying. Let me give an example. I live in La Pocatière, or, more specifically, Saint‑Roch‑des‑Aulnaies, which is an hour and fifteen minutes away from Quebec City and major chains like Costco and so on. What kind of compensation would I get with the surtax, compared to someone who lives in Lévis and is a two-minute walk from the major chain in question? That is what life is like in the regions. Longueuil, for example, is not a big region. My region covers 7,500 square kilometres. When I am travelling around my riding, it can take three hours to get from one end to the other. I do not cycle that. When I go shopping, I obviously try to shop as close to home as possible, but if I want to shop elsewhere, I have to pay for gas, travel and my time. That will obviously have an impact on my total costs. Why is the NDP not trying to address the root cause of these price increases? It must know that printing money to finance the Liberal government's astronomical deficits has devalued the Canadian dollar. It is sad to say, but the current government's poor management has weakened our petrodollars, which, in the past, increased along with the price of a barrel of oil. This is definitely not the case at present. Members will recall that in 2007 and 2011, under the Conservative government, the Canadian dollar was practically on par with the U.S. dollar, and even briefly pushed above it, in some cases. Not everyone was pleased, especially exporters, but it did at least give consumers some breathing room and let them take advantage of prices that were stable and even dropped for some imported goods, such as food items that we cannot grow because of our climate. This year, however, we find ourselves with the worst of both worlds: gas prices that continue to increase significantly and the purchasing power of our dollar that is decreasing across the board. We all know the results of the government's record over the past six years, which consists of financing deficits not just with borrowed money, but with printed money as well. Why does the NDP believe that everything can be solved by increasing taxes? I cannot wrap my head around that. I cannot understand it. What we need to do is lower taxes and reduce the size of the government to try to save money in a lot of different places. I would remind the House that, in 2015, the Liberal government said that it would run three small deficits of $10 billion, but it ran a $100-billion deficit after three years. Then, the pandemic hit. Imagine what that would mean if a recession were to hit. That would add fuel to the fire. The Liberals are going to make the inflationary spiral we are experiencing in Canada even worse. Canada must be able to compete in a global economy, and the worst thing that can be done for investment in Canada is to entrust this government with the task of determining which industries are more deserving of preferential tax rates and which ones should be given punitive tax rates. It can take years before a company takes off and becomes profitable. There is still a lot of uncertainty in the business community right now. The government cannot just suddenly decide how a society will pay taxes based on public discontent. We need to maintain a predictable business environment. Did the NDP think about how many more public servants it will take to administer this new tax and to redistribute the funding? How much will that cost in paperwork alone? The government is slow enough as it is in delivering its current programs. This would only make things worse. In rural ridings like mine, people are tired of paying more and more taxes. This only increases the cost of travelling long distances to work, to school, to kids' activities or simply to the grocery store. We say no to any more taxes. The cost of living is high enough as it is.

1546 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/21/22 1:07:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member said that the Liberal government has devalued the Canadian dollar. I am wondering by which measure he is making this claim. If the member is claiming it is based on valuing it against the U.S. dollar, the exchange rate is actually among the highest in the last five years. If he is talking about it in terms of what inflation has done to the Canadian dollar, indeed that inflationary impact has been felt around the entire globe. The value of our dollar still remains significantly higher than other countries'. Can the member clarify what he meant when he said the Liberal government has devalued the Canadian dollar? By most measures, that is just factually untrue.

120 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux

Mar/21/22 1:08:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what is true is that the government has spent $600 billion over the past six years. That is the reality, and no one can ever take that away from them. Unfortunately, they will be stuck with that legacy forever. That is why everyone is paying, and will continue to pay, more money in interest. It is beyond belief that the Liberals have more than doubled the debt in six years.

73 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/21/22 1:09:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He did a good job outlining the cost of the paperwork that would result from this new tax increase. How many public servants does he think it will take to change a “5” to an “8” on a tax return?

54 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux

Mar/21/22 1:09:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, knowing the federal government, it will surely take thousands of people to change a “5” to an “8” on tax returns. In reality, the math is not as simple as it sounds. The money collected will have to be redistributed, but how will that be done and who will receive it? The federal government has grown as big as an elephant. This measure will do nothing to stop it from getting any bigger.

80 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/21/22 1:09:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am stunned, unfortunately, and so disappointed by the comments from the hon. member across the way. I do not think that he read the motion and I would hope that he looks at it more closely. In no way have we ever talked about increasing taxation on people. In no way have we talked about increasing taxes on small businesses. This is specifically for those large organizations and corporations that have made excess record profits. They do not pass those along to people. They already do not pay their fair share in taxes, and people are feeling that on the ground. Scotiabank had a net profit of $10.1 billion and it paid its shareholders, but it does not go into the pockets of people. They take that from people and they take that from their customers. Loblaws had $1.9 billion. They take that—

149 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/21/22 1:10:58 p.m.
Watch

I would ask the hon. member to ask a question, please. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

27 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux

Mar/21/22 1:11:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I have a totally different view of this. I do business. When I sell a product to someone, I try to sell it to them at the best possible price and under the best possible conditions. Inevitably, the tax or the surtax—I read it—proposed for banks, insurance companies and others will be passed on to consumers. It is completely ridiculous to think otherwise. Does my colleague really believe that these companies will not pass on the surtax to consumers? They will automatically raise their prices by 3%, there is no other way. The surtax will inevitably be passed on to consumers. The goal, however, is not to tax consumers directly, but the big banks.

124 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/21/22 1:11:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have another question for my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. I am not sure if the member for Kingston and the Islands already asked this. The Conservatives think the value of our dollar has dropped relative to other countries. Is that just because of inflation? I do not think I understood his response.

65 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux

Mar/21/22 1:12:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our country's debt has doubled over the past six years. It took 150 years for the debt to reach $600 billion. Now it is over $1.2 trillion. The size of Canada's debt is almost inconceivable. We have to pay all that borrowed money back, and that affects the value of our dollar.

58 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/21/22 1:12:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for Terrebonne. On this first day of spring, and I wish you an excellent spring, Madam Speaker, I see that the NDP is dedicating its opposition day to the Liberal Party's election platform. I wonder why. Part of the Liberal platform was to charge this surtax on the profits of the big banks. I think maybe the NDP no longer has confidence in the Liberals. However, the budget is coming up and I have seen the NDP declare its confidence in the Liberals several times. It even did so when it came time to support the emergency measures, even though several legal experts confirmed that those measures breached the fundamental rights of Canadians. I wonder what has the NDP so concerned on the eve of the budget. The Liberals themselves proposed going after the big banks to the tune of $10 billion over four years. I am thinking that it is probably because the Liberals are in the habit of listening to what Bay Street has to say. What happened when the Liberals suggested imposing this small surtax on banks during the election campaign? The banks made threats. Top bankers and their associations came out and started saying that they would increase consumer fees and eliminate jobs in the banking sector and that this would be catastrophic. We are all worried that the Liberals will listen to Bay Street bankers. Not so long ago, a former finance minister came from Bay Street. We understand that he is no longer talking to them, but he was so charming that he surely still has friends there. What surprises me the most is that we are discussing a surtax. The reality is that our banks are undertaxed. Our banks and the businesses that provide all manner of other goods and services are not on an equal footing. Do we pay the GST on financial services? No, because financial services are generally exempt from pretty much all taxes. However, when we purchase goods and other services, they are taxed, even in the riding of the member who just spoke about buying goods. Banks offer financial services and are funded in a somewhat underhanded way. We know what happens. When my constituents put their money in the bank, what kind of interest rate do they get? They basically get no return on their investment. However, the bank turns around and lends money at a rate of 22% on credit cards, 15% on lines of credit, 5% on other things and so on. The bank makes money because of this credit spread, but there are never any financial service transactions. That circumvents the principle of value-added taxation, which all other businesses support. Banks are undertaxed, but there are ways to tax them. Great Britain's Mirrlees Review, a major tax commission led by a Nobel prize recipient, explained that, in order to remedy this problem, banks' cash flow and financial services could be taxed. However, it is surprising that no tax is proposed when it comes time to collect from banks to level the playing field for our companies. When banks need funding, they turn to the Bank of Canada, which loaned them money at a rate of a quarter of a percentage point during the pandemic. This system is supported by the public trust and the taxpayer. Did banks complain when they were charging higher mortgage rates in a completely inflationary market? The answer is no. Bank lobbyists never told us that people were paying too much. When banks seek funding by issuing debt obligations or bonds, they pay less than all other companies with similar capitalizations, and this is because banks will not be able to declare bankruptcy. They are too big to fail. People purchasing obligations from banks know very well that if disaster ever strikes a bank and there are problems with the financial system, Canadian and Quebec taxpayers will come to their rescue through the Bank of Canada as the lender of last resort. This means that banks make more profit because they pay less for their debt certificates. We must stop calling this proposal a surtax. Our banks have access to many tax advantages based on the nature of the services they provide and on the fact that they benefit from a system that is less competitive than in other places, which means that they make more profit. For the sake of fairness, justice and efficiency, we need to get an additional contribution, in the absence of more appropriate tax reform. We hear them talk about the banks. We hear the Conservatives. There is no shortage of arguments against this tax. The first argument is that the banks are owned by large Canadian investment funds and those Canadian investment funds generate dividends. We hear them say that there will be fewer dividends if we tax the banks' profits a little more and that the big investment funds will pay, except that during the pandemic, profits were higher than normal. There were excess profits. No investment fund manager in Canada, whether they work for the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan or private funds, had anticipated those returns and the difference in performance from companies whose security is not guaranteed by the Government of Canada. We are in a situation where, if we tax a portion of excess profits, we are not even getting back to the profits already anticipated by all Canadian investment fund managers. This is therefore a bad argument. Now we are being told this will affect housing prices. That is both practically and theoretically untrue. Why? The reason is that our banks structure their costs in such a way as to maximize profit. They have revenue and expenses, and their goal is to achieve the biggest gap between the two. That is called profit. However, whether the government taxes that profit at 15% or 18%, the bank's recipe is exactly the same. It will still maximize profit, the same as before. Higher tax rates will make absolutely no difference. In fact, this approach to taxing banks' excessive profits is one of the most effective and one of the least likely to create distortion and to be passed on to consumers. I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues. It almost sounds like they are talking about a sales tax. Taxes vary in the type of damage they can do, in their economic impact. This particular tax is justified and equitable. The Bloc Québécois has already put a similar idea forward. We proposed a retroactive tax because the situation with excessive bank profits was unusual. Our thinking was that, in a full-blown pandemic, what people need is health care and health transfers. Governments are under extreme pressure, and never before have we been in such dire need of government support. That is exactly why we suggested it. When I meet people in my riding, people who have lived through two years of a pandemic, and the hospitals are cutting staff, when the Quebec government is asking for transfers and the nine other provinces and the territories agree but Ottawa turns a deaf ear, I figure that at some point we will have to find a way to finance these services. Now the federal government has a way. I am tired of hearing that the banks will pass on the costs to consumers, and so on. What we are proposing is justice. Banks are undertaxed and are legally avoiding paying tax. Since the 2006 crisis, taxes on corporate profits have been significantly and systematically reduced for all businesses. We are now at a crossroads where we must reflect on this and decide whether all businesses should be treated equally or banks should be taxed differently. Are banks really different? Obviously, the answer is yes. Should we find other ways of taxing financial products and the credit spread? The answer is yes. Let us think about this logically. The government is under pressure. It had to increase service delivery. It has to increase health transfers, listen to the provinces and find new sources of revenue. It is not surprising that the Conservatives and some of my colleagues are against this. They are against everything. The only way they understand how to finance any service is through oil, oil, and more oil. However, because of their oil, before the last increase in the price of a barrel, the government of Alberta projected a $500-million deficit. It is obvious to me that taxes need to be fair and equitable. This is a motion that, in principle, supports this idea, and that is why I will vote in favour.

1474 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/21/22 1:22:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague and friend across the way, and I think there is some discontent within the coalition of the Bloc and the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, we hear a lot about banks, as we should. We want to ensure that everyone pays their fair share. However, one of the things that is important to recognize when we talk about banks is it is not one person who owns, for example, the Bank of Montreal. It is not the super wealthy who own our banks. It is often union members, pension funds and so forth, and they too are dependent on these dividends. I would just ask the member to follow up his comments with the best way to tax so it is most effective and not hurting the consumer. Could he provide further thoughts on that?

145 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Mar/21/22 1:23:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North knows how much I admire him. I find it fascinating that the Liberals are forming a coalition government with the NDP and are now claiming that there is a coalition of the opposition. Perhaps they are a bit embarrassed. That being said, I have mentioned this before. It is true that large corporations pay out dividends. It is true for banks, which must observe minimum Canadian ownership tresholds. It is also true that profits have exceeded all projections. What the Bloc Québécois is asking is to consider the projections. No investment fund manager saw this coming. During the election campaign, the Bloc Québécois suggested seizing some of these profits, because they have nothing to do with our banks’ business acumen. They are the result of circumstances, not the banks’ actions. We should take some of these profits. It would be both effective and fair.

161 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Mar/21/22 1:25:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do have to make a comment at the beginning on the idea of a coalition. I mean, words have to mean something. The last time I checked, there were not any New Democrats in the cabinet meeting, and the last time I looked at the voting records, all three of the opposition parties voted with the Liberals from time to time in roughly equal proportions. However, I want to thank the member for Mirabel for pointing out the absurdity of the Conservatives' arguments. I think he must agree with me that the Conservatives are really saying that, since taxes to businesses are always passed on to consumers, we should never tax businesses. Is that not where the Conservatives' arguments are really leading today?

126 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Mar/21/22 1:25:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have said this before. Taxing different businesses fairly means subjecting them to similar tax treatment. Right now, banks are not subject to similar tax treatment. That is what we need to change in the field of banking services. Some Conservatives could use a course in economics, and I am prepared to give one in the lobby. Not all taxes are passed directly on to consumers. It depends on the consumers' reaction and the size of the tax base to which the tax is applied. It is highly unlikely that this would happen with the tax on profits, much more unlikely than with other types of tax, such as consumption taxes.

113 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/21/22 1:26:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech given by my colleague from Mirabel. We can always count on him to identify the limitations of the market in a crisis. He would make the founding fathers of political economy proud, because they emphasized the importance of redistribution. My colleague is offering to teach a course in economics, so I suggest that he also offer a course in economic history. Historically, whenever there was a crisis, governments always opted for a policy of redistribution through taxes. Can my colleague tell me whether this is true or false, and provide more details?

98 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Mar/21/22 1:27:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are two things I want to say. That is what happened in wartime, during World War II, when the debt ratio increased. The government collected exceptional contributions from the big banks and corporations, far more than is being asked for today. That allowed us to get through very difficult times. Now, my colleagues need to understand that, by its very nature, the Canadian banking system is less competitive than other countries' systems. Profits are higher than elsewhere, and the system is also more stable. We need to be able to take advantage of this stability when we need it the most. That time is now.

108 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Mar/21/22 1:27:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Mirabel, for sharing his time with me. We are here to debate the motion put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby South, highlighting several wealth gap issues that have been exacerbated by current inflation. Let me remind the House that, during the last election campaign, this government promised to levy a 3% surtax on the profits of banks and insurance companies. We agree with this measure. Let me also remind the House that, while the public finances recorded colossal deficits and the pandemic forced SMEs out of business, several sectors of the economy besides banks and insurers became richer. Today's motion seeks to leverage the huge profits that certain companies earned in spite of the crisis. Their support will essential. We are currently experiencing a period of high inflation. In December, the consumer price index rose by 4.8% on a year-over-year basis. This major acceleration of inflation significantly affects the purchasing power of Canadians and Quebeckers. The price of groceries rose by 5.7%, and the price of housing grew by 9.3% compared with December 2020. The simple fact is that inflation is affecting almost all goods. That in turn is affecting both individuals and businesses. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has had a significant impact on the price of energy. Even if the price of gasoline does go back down eventually, its current volatility and unpredictability are enough to worry Quebeckers. We were used to countering inflation by addressing surges in demand, but we are now also facing problems with supply, including increasing pressure on labour and energy costs. That being said, it is important to implement measures to protect the general public, especially the most vulnerable members of our society, from price increases. Let us look specifically at who could be doing more in this situation. In the past 12 months, several financial groups have earned record profits. National Bank, Laurentian Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal, TD Bank, Scotiabank, CIBC and Mouvement Desjardins collectively earned $60.68 billion in profits. That is 39% or approximately $17 billion more than the previous year, which was also a pandemic year. The year 2020 was a good year for some businesses, according to an analysis of the profits of the largest Canadian businesses published at the end of last year. According to Canadians for Tax Fairness, 111 publicly traded companies headquartered in Canada made profits of at least $100 million in the first nine months of the year, and 34 of them posted record profits. The top profit-maker was TC Energy, formerly TransCanada, whose Keystone project has been in the news for years. The company made $3.5 billion in profit on $9.7 billion in sales in the first three quarters, for a profit margin of 35.6%. This stands in stark contrast to what has been happening with our SMEs. Many went into debt to get through the pandemic, wagering that the economy would eventually get back to normal. Even if the economy recovers, they will still be in debt. There is a reason the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that one in four SMEs could close down permanently in 2022 because they went into debt during previous waves. Small business confidence in Canada and Quebec remained especially low in January because of supply issues, the health restrictions and labour shortages. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the idea of implementing a tax on profits over $1 billion for banks and insurance companies, as well as oil companies and big box stores. The tax should be used for assistance programs, in particular for SMEs. Such significant measures require an explanation. They are aimed at increasing the government’s revenues to help it deal with the deficit and assist struggling SMEs. These measures would directly help those who are hardest hit by inflation. I can already hear our Conservative friends say that taxing corporate profits makes it more difficult for those that keep the economy rolling to reinvest. However, they are well aware that the large profits made by these companies mean that they already have considerable reinvestment power. In the final analysis, we would be taking 18 cents out of every dollar of the profit made by billionaire companies. They would still have a bit of a margin left. In the case of oil companies, we need to make sure that the plan includes programs aimed at reinvesting in the urgently needed energy transition. If we collect these funds, it will have to be to better guide the investments of corporations that have a significant societal impact. The purpose of taxes is to take a small portion of the surplus of wealth-creating businesses to correct market failures and thus redistribute wealth, while redirecting the funds with a plan and coherent vision aimed at improving Canadians’ well-being. Let us keep in mind that we are talking about 3% for businesses that make more than $1 billion in profits. We are in the middle of a climate crisis and economic tensions that often require state intervention to redistribute wealth. In short, we support the spirit of today’s motion. The Bloc Québécois will support any measure that effectively benefits the most vulnerable. We cannot just stand idly by while workers and businesses struggle with the effects of the pandemic. The objective of the proposed surtax is to get revenues from those who benefitted from the crisis to help those who suffered from it. That is why governments exist. We know that the extremely costly measures taken during the pandemic increased the deficit. Now it is time to take stock, and we must correct the failures of a market we know to be imperfect, especially when it is faced with the uncertainty of a pandemic. What is our purpose as members of Parliament in these critical times if not to propose and support measures aimed at protecting the most vulnerable and promoting a vision whose only goal is the well-being of society?

1034 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 42