SoVote

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

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

Mar/21/22 1:35:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the member's last point. Back in 2015 when we had the federal election, we had made it very clear that the priority of the government was going to be Canada's middle class and those working hard to become a part of it. One of our first initiatives was to put a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%, and then to take that money and give the middle class a tax break. I say that because when I look at the resolution, I think Canadians and all of us expect that we have an obligation to pay taxes. The issue is a sense of fairness, and that is what governments, whether at the national or provincial level, need to strive for. Can the member provide her thoughts in regard to why it is so important that governments at different levels recognize tax fairness?

152 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Mar/21/22 1:36:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Equity and social justice are extremely important to the Bloc Québécois. In this particular case, we are talking about a 3% surtax, that is, from 15% to 18%, for companies that already have profits over $1 billion, so it amounts to a redistribution. Of course, every well-intentioned parliamentarian in this place should want those profits to be shared with our most vulnerable citizens.

78 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Mar/21/22 1:36:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for an extraordinary speech, one that displays a progressive view of politics that I think is refreshing to be heard in this chamber. It is funny. Anybody who understands history knows that in the 1950s and 1960s in this country we had a period of unprecedented growth and we had tax rates that were far fairer. Of course, then we had the 1980s and the right-wing neo-Conservative revolution with the absurd contention that the best way to help poor people is to cut taxes on the rich, and all of that has resulted in is incredible inequality in this country. I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comment on the failed experiment of neo-Conservative economics. Does she agree with the NDP that a fair tax system is a key way to address wealth inequality in Canada?

149 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Mar/21/22 1:37:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his kind words and his very pertinent question. Indeed, the prosperity gap has only increased over the last few decades, as economists like Thomas Piketty have pointed out. These prosperity gaps are getting wider and wider. The majority of the population is feeling a growing sense of injustice, which is not being addressed. That is why a fair tax system is needed. I absolutely agree with the NDP on this. I do want to stress, however, that taxation can also be a question of incentives, and we have to be careful when taxing certain companies that these incentives do not push companies to engage in tax avoidance, which is unfortunately legal, to divest or to simply leave the country. How taxes are collected remains important. However, in this case, as my hon. colleague from Mirabel pointed out, this tax will not be passed on to consumers. It will only redistribute wealth.

159 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/21/22 1:39:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me express my admiration for my colleagues from Mirabel and Terrebonne, who spoke so incredibly eloquently with knowledge of their respective topics. It is often said that the Bloc does nothing but block, but that is just not true. We bring solutions, ideas and depth to the debates. I think that my colleagues proved that in their speeches. There is something I would like someone to explain to me. If this motion were adopted and this measure put in place and we effectively took 3% to create a fund to help people deal with the rising cost of living, where would we put that money? What would take priority? How do we manage this fund to ensure that the government does not use it to do God knows what? I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

141 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Mar/21/22 1:39:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. This gives me the chance to say a bit more about the issues of economic development and the redistribution of wealth. In this time of climate crisis and economic tensions, that money must first be used for an energy transition. Then it must be used to help businesses that create a tremendous amount of value but that are vulnerable during this pandemic period. There are major supply problems, including with respect to the labour shortage and the supply chain, and we must absolutely help wealth‑creating businesses that do not have the luxury of making more than $1 billion in profits. We must also help with the energy transition by redirecting investments in oil companies, in particular, to a meaningful investment that is good for society in general.

139 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Mar/21/22 1:40:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. The cost of food is going up. The cost of gas is going up. The cost of housing has been skyrocketing for years, and it continues to shoot up. Canadians are feeling the impacts. They are struggling to make ends meet and to put food on the table, struggling to pay rent and struggling just to afford the basics. While Canadians are struggling, big corporations are making record profits. In my riding of Victoria, seniors on fixed incomes are coming to me saying that the rising costs mean they are having to choose between paying for food and paying for medication. Families who have been surviving paycheque to paycheque have told me they are going into debt just to get by. Many young people are barely scraping by as it is. Most have completely given up on the idea of ever owning a home and are just worried about how they are going to pay rent. I sat down with the James Bay Community Project a few weeks ago. They are an amazing non-profit community organization. They help seniors, youth and families by providing community support and volunteer services. They spoke to me about the impact that the pandemic has had on low-income folks in our community, especially in food insecurity for seniors. The rising cost of living impacts everyone, but it especially impacts the most vulnerable. While people in my community and people across Canada are struggling, the ultra-rich are making more money than ever, raking in record profits and accumulating even more wealth. Wealth inequality is reaching levels that we have not seen in generations. The past year broke records when it came to creating new billionaires. On average, a new billionaire was created every day—every single day. The number of billionaires on the Forbes annual list of the world's wealthiest exploded to unprecedented levels. The wealth of billionaires has risen more in the past two years during this pandemic than it has in the past 14 years. This is the biggest surge in billionaire wealth since we started keeping records, and a staggering 90% of the Canadian billionaires are richer than they were one year ago. While everyday Canadians are falling farther and farther behind, worried about the cost of food and worried about the cost of rent, the super-rich are getting even richer. This kind of extreme inequality is outrageous in and of itself. I spoke to a single mom who told me about how the rising cost of gas, diapers and food has eaten into her budget and how she is scrambling this year, on the first of every month, calling friends and trying to figure out how she is going to make rent, while at the same time, in the same year, the wealthiest shareholders and corporations, the same corporations that are raising prices, are raking in billions. That is outrageous. The members in this chamber should be outraged. It is outrageous that while families are struggling to pay for groceries, the billionaire Weston family is raking in profits. They own Loblaws, the Real Canadian Superstore and Shoppers Drug Mart. Loblaws has a net profit of more than a billion dollars. As the price of groceries continues to increase, Loblaws paid out half a billion dollars in dividends to their shareholders. Families are struggling to pay for gas, but Suncor made over $4 billion. Gas prices continue to rise, and they paid out $3.9 billion to their shareholders. Oil companies are making record profits off the backs of Canadians, while Canadians are paying hundreds of dollars more at the pump. At the same time, these oil companies are receiving billions in fossil fuel subsidies from the Liberal government. It is outrageous that the government continues to hand out public money to profitable oil companies, companies that are fuelling the climate crisis. The climate crisis is already threatening everything that we value, with devastating climate fires, extreme flooding and extreme heat. The Arctic poles are currently experiencing unprecedented heat waves. This is causing alarm among climate scientists. This is a dire warning of a faster and more abrupt climate breakdown. How many more dire warnings do we need? How many more disasters? We are running out of time to stop the worst and irreversible impacts of the climate crisis. This is a climate emergency, and the government is not acting like it, continuing to pay big oil to pollute while it gouges Canadians at the pump. That is outrageous. Families are struggling to make mortgage and loan payments while Scotiabank had a net profit of over $10 billion. It had the gall to increase fees for customers while paying out $4.3 billion in dividends to its shareholders. That is outrageous. The economic impacts of the pandemic hit Canadians hard. As families, seniors and young people have struggled with the cost of living, corporations that have been raising prices are making windfall profits. This kind of extreme inequality is outrageous. However, extreme inequality is not only outrageous; it leads to worse health and social outcomes and has a disproportionate impact on women and racialized folks. It also puts a drag on economic growth. Importantly, and this is probably the most important thing I am going to say today, this kind of extreme inequality is not inevitable. It is not a fact of life. It is a choice by decision-makers, by elected officials, by the government. It is a choice to protect the profits of the wealthiest while making the vast majority suffer the consequences. Because of choices made by the government, the ultrarich can continue to protect their wealth using a financial system with very little transparency. Because of choices made by the government, the wealthiest are allowed to exploit this crisis for their own profit. They benefit from excess corporate profits while everyday Canadians get gouged by inflation. Because of choices of the government, money laundering and tax evasion are rampant in Canada, driving up the cost of housing. There is even a name for it: “snow washing”. It refers to how easy it is in Canada to launder money and evade taxes. We have some of the weakest corporate transparency laws in the world. This allows billions to be laundered, and it has been devastating our real estate market. It has led to an overvaluing of the average price of residential properties. On average, it impacts homes in my riding of Victoria by $45,000 to $90,000. This is why we need a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. Housing, grocery and gas prices are the rising costs that people are dealing with every day, so today, members of the House have a choice. Are we going to make big banks, big box stores and big oil companies pay their fair share? Are we going to help the people who are struggling with the cost of living? Are we going to get tough on money laundering and tax evasion? The Liberal government has the choice today to stop protecting excess corporate profits and to start helping people with the cost of living. One important step would be fulfilling their campaign promise to implement a 3% surtax on banks and insurance companies with net profits of over $1 billion, and extend the surtax to oil companies and large grocery chains. It is also critical to establish a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry to combat tax evasion and money laundering by the wealthy. Then, let us choose to use the tax revenue from the surtax to fund things that will actually help people who are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. Let us increase the Canada child benefit, the GIS and GST rebates, and build affordable housing. Fair taxation is a key tool for governments to address wealth inequality, provide key public services and increase supports that curb inequality. When members of the House vote on this motion—

1341 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/21/22 1:51:15 p.m.
Watch

It is time for questions and comments. The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

17 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Mar/21/22 1:51:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria, a fellow British Columbian, for her intervention. I know she feels strongly about these issues. The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan invests heavily in financials, with 15% or 16% of its assets there. Many widows and orphans get what they get back from banking stocks. By the same token, we have the Liberals' crazy idea, which the NDP is endorsing, of suddenly raising corporate taxes on specific banks and deciding which ones will be in and which ones will be out. However, the fact is that most banks will just raise user fees a slight amount for everyone they serve rather than lose the business of wealthy people who the NDP apparently wants to target. How does the member square that circle? I am certainly supportive of the idea of a beneficial ownership registry. I wish the government would get that registry up and started properly.

153 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Mar/21/22 1:52:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Scotiabank made over $10 billion and is handing out billions to its shareholders. It can afford a 3% surtax. We know this, and we need to be investing that money into things that will actually help people who are struggling with the cost of living. When the member puts his vote down for this motion, I hope he understands that he has a choice: Is he going to put corporate profits first, or is he going to put people in my riding, in his riding, across British Columbia and across Canada first?

94 words

Mr. Han Dong (Don Valley North, Lib.)

Mar/21/22 1:53:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member's debate was very interesting and she did not get a chance to finish, so I would like to give her my one minute to let her conclude her remarks.

34 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Mar/21/22 1:53:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his generosity. When members of the House vote on this motion they have a choice. Are they going to put corporate profits first, or are they going to protect the people who are struggling with the cost of living? I do not know who still needs to hear this, but extreme wealth inequality is a choice made by governments. It is time to make different choices.

75 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Mar/21/22 1:54:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating for a few hours already, and we always come back to the same thing. We understand very well that banks are being asked to contribute and that the 3% surtax is necessary for a redistribution of wealth. Earlier, I was asking my NDP colleague whether he would vote in favour of any Bloc Québécois measures to address the problems we have experienced and are now experiencing. What I understand from my colleague's comments is that when the Bloc Québécois makes proposals that are directly related to the collective well-being, the NPD will support them.

110 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 42