SoVote

Mar/21/22 4:19:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. In the most recent mandate letters for the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the commitment to make a beneficial ownership registry public was curiously absent. I would ask the member if he knows if his government is still committed to making this registry public. Currently, the government only collects limited data on ownership, and money laundering is wreaking havoc on our housing market. Will the member across the way commit today to push his government to make this important registry public?

96 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Mar/21/22 4:20:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's push in this direction. It is an important discussion to have. Strengthening the transparency needed for corporate beneficial ownership is a topic that our government is very concerned with and, in fact, has done a pretty substantive public consultation and engagement on. I note a document posted on the Government of Canada's website from April 6, 2021, provides quite a lot of information about some very detailed and in-depth consultation work that was done. I will read the conclusion, which states: ...stakeholders across the spectrum supported the idea of a central registry (or registries) of beneficial ownership information as an effective tool in making sure that law enforcement, tax and other authorities obtain the information they need to identify the natural persons who own and control Canadian corporations. While there were more mixed views on the value and merits of public access, [this]...remains a priority of the Government of Canada.

160 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Mar/21/22 4:21:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned child care in his speech as part of this debate on affordability. He is keen that his province sign on. I will share a big challenge that I am hearing of from child care providers in my province, a province that has signed a deal with the federal government, and that is that the federal plan effectively involves deregulation and limited increases to fees, which are actually below the current rate of inflation. Child care providers are very concerned. They are being told that they cannot charge more than a certain amount, that they cannot raise their fees beyond a certain amount, and that is severely limiting their ability to expand to offer more child care services and do what this plan is theoretically supposed to do, which is to increase the availability of child care. In the short term, it sounds great to say the fees are being regulated, but in the long term, if child care providers cannot expand, cannot afford to offer services and are being forced to close as a result of the cost squeeze on them from inflation and other factors, there is a serious problem. It is a real sort of ticking time bomb in the availability of child care services.

212 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Mar/21/22 4:22:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern and interest in seeing child care agreements signed across the country and the substantive reduction in fees that families, which are ultimately the consumers and beneficiaries of these services, would experience as a result of the very substantive federal government investments across Canada. In terms of regulating and capping fees, this is an issue that our government would take seriously. The formula, as I understand it, as it applies to the provinces and territories, seems quite fair from my perspective. Ontario has $10.3 billion on the table that it can take advantage of to offer children and families across Ontario access to affordable child care. That is an opportunity not to be missed.

122 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/21/22 4:23:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the last two government members who spoke talked to us about the monetary policy framework and tried to reassure us by telling us that there are still two years of higher inflation ahead before it goes back down to 2%. Let me do the math for my colleague. If we include energy and food, inflation was 6% last year. If that percentage stays the same this year and the next before going back down to 2%, that translates to a 20% increase in prices over four years, or the equivalent of 10 years of inflation in 48 months. That is why we are asking that old age security be increased by $110 a month for our seniors. I would like to know if the Liberals do not know how to count or if they have simply forgotten about our seniors.

142 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Mar/21/22 4:24:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's lesson in mathematics. Our government has not forgotten how to count. As I said in my speech, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are indexed to inflation. The Bank of Canada has set 2% as a target, and over the course of the next five years, it will be putting a monetary policy in place, including the recent increase in the base interest rate, that will help to control inflation.

79 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Mar/21/22 4:25:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the amazing member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. We are here today to talk about an NDP motion that really addresses the key issue of where the bar of dignity is in this country we all belong to. What we are seeing across this country is more and more people falling below it. Members may ask what I mean by the bar of dignity. To me, it means that one has the ability to look after themselves, to have a roof over their head, to be able to feed themselves, to be able to afford the medication they need and to be able to access those basic things that we all deserve to be a part of because we are all Canadians and because we live in a wealthy country that should be looking after all the people who live in it. Right now, we are in another government, another federal government, which passes hands between the Liberals and Conservatives, that continues to take that bar of dignity and lower it and lower it. We have heard from some of our Liberal friends here today that there are some great economic outcomes. There are more jobs and there are more opportunities. However, when we talk to everyday people who are living through that experience right now, what we see very clearly is that a lot of those folks are working three or four of those jobs trying to make ends meet. We are talking about families who do not get to spend time together as a family because both working parents have to juggle all of those factors. We need to look at this in what we are seeing people do and see where their needs are. I cannot help but touch on housing. In my riding of North Island—Powell River, we have seen a huge increase in the cost of living. That is largely based around a housing market that has exploded. Parts of my riding, some of the most rural and remote communities, have seen the cost of housing go up between 60% and 80%. That means that people who are living within those communities cannot afford to purchase within their own community. It has also had a huge impact on people who were renting homes. With the market exploding this way, we are seeing a lot of people who own houses that they usually rent out are selling those houses because they are making a lot of money in doing so. This means more and more people are unhoused. Just the other day, we had a gentleman walk into our office. My staff were quick to tell me when I came back. It was a gentleman who lives on disability. He has been living in his apartment for many, many years and has just been told that he has to leave because a new person bought the home that has the rental unit he lives in. His reality, and it is the truth because I have heard it from so many people across my riding, is there is nowhere else for him to go. There is no affordable unit for him. When I hear that the government is giving money to private corporations that are charging rents that are 30% to 120% higher than the market rate, it just tells us this is not a project or program that the government is taking seriously. It is not about making sure the people who are unhoused, who are struggling, who do not know how they are going to live from day to day are going to be able to have an affordable home to live in. It is about priorities, and that is what this motion is about in this House. It is about saying that the people who work hard every day deserve to be treated with dignity. I think about these challenges. I have talked to a lot of professionals who have lost their rental units simply because they have been sold from underneath them. They are now living in trailers hoping that trailer parks will not just stay open during the normal summer, spring and fall months, but that they will stay open the whole year, just so they have somewhere safe to live. I also think about the many seniors who had the GIS clawed back. They were contacting our office. They are very grateful they are seeing those dollars come back to them, but in a lot of cases, they have already lost their home and have already lost where they live. Now, because the cost of living is going up so much and because the cost of rentals are going up so much, they have nowhere to live. Just the other day I was at Kwesa Place, which is a place in Campbell River that provides showers and laundry facilities for those who are unhoused. When I was there, I met a lot of folks who are just struggling to get by, who are really challenged for multiple reasons. One of the things that was most startling to me was that inside that space they have a project they are working on. They are building wooden structures that people would be able to pull, either on their own or with a bike, that they can live in, because there is nowhere else for them to live. I really respect solutions. I really respect when communities come together, look at some of these issues and create solutions, but this tells me we are still not seeing a federal government that sees the right to housing as a basic human right. The government is saying that it is okay for people to scrounge around to make a few thousand dollars and build a wooden box to live in, so they do not get cold in a rainstorm. As such, I appreciate what Kwesa Place is doing. I really appreciate the warmth it brings and how it helps people be able to wash their laundry, but I want the bar of dignity in this country to be higher. That is what this motion is about. I have also had some conversation with food banks in my riding. We have talked about the huge numbers of people who are coming through and continue to come through. They are people who have never had to use the food bank before. People who are working hard every day and making a decent income are having to come to the food banks because they cannot afford not to. Why is the government continuing to allow the bar of dignity for Canadians to go so far down? What I find the most frustrating is that often in these big moments of discussion about how to make the world a better place, I see people fighting one another and people mad because one group of people has one right and another group of people has another right. I think it is important for all of us, as Canadians, to come together and ask what the real issue is here. The real issue here is that wealth is being held by very few in this country, and every year we are seeing their piece of the pie grow larger and everybody else's grow smaller, so I really encourage Canadians to stop fighting about their small piece of the pie and other people's small pieces of the pie. Let us start talking about what really needs to happen, which is leadership from the federal government to say that, if someone is going to make enormous profits, they need to step up and pay their fair share. I can tell members that the people in my riding, whether they work in the fishing industry, the logging industry, or in education or tourism, are paying their fair share every single day. They care about their communities every single day, but there are those in this country who are not paying their fair share. I just want to let my constituents know that in 2021, Scotiabank had a net profit of over $10 billion. It paid $4.3 billion of those billions of dollars in dividends to the shareholders, and at the same time it increased its customers' banking fees. Then we saw that BMO made a net profit of $7.7 billion and paid out over $2.7 billion in dividends, while increasing the fees for its customers' bank accounts. We can look at Loblaws, owned by the very wealthy Weston family, which made a net profit of $1.9 billion. They paid $484 million in dividends to their shareholders. However, they refused to increase the wages of their workers. They refused to supplement those frontline workers who have been working on the front line during this pandemic and who continue to work on the front line. They are at higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Really, today we are here to talk about fairness, to take up that space and make this country a little fairer. Let us look at this motion. It would direct the Liberals to fulfill their campaign promise. This is perhaps a bit of a new thing for them, but something I am really hopeful they will follow through with. They said they would implement a 3% surtax on banks and insurance companies with net profits over $1 billion. We also want to see it extended to oil companies and large grocery chains with net profits over $1 billion because it is time for a government in this country to finally stand up, stop protecting excess corporate profits and start saying the bar of dignity in this country needs to be higher. We should not have seniors at the bottom grovelling for the things they need, when they built this country. We should not be asking families to put groceries back on the shelves because they cannot afford them. Hopefully we will see some action on this.

1672 words

All Topics

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

Mar/21/22 4:35:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would not want to see false impressions being given when we have seen over the last number of years a progressive government that has focused special taxes on some of the wealthiest in Canada, right from the first budget up to legislation that we just passed. Recognizing that the member made reference to the cost of housing, we now have an annual tax for individuals who are purchasing condos and so forth, in places such as Vancouver and our other big cities, and using them purely as an investment as opposed to a residence. That is a special annual tax that will be applied to very wealthy people. There are different ways we can approach this. I would suggest to the member that what she said has been noted, and I appreciate the comments, but I would ask her if she could provide her thoughts on this: When you make reference to banks, we need to be fair. Many of the shareholders of the banks are pension funds and so forth, so it is not only individuals per se.

182 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/21/22 4:36:30 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that I do not participate. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

21 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mar/21/22 4:36:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, I appreciate that the member rises almost every time, after almost every single speech in this House, to ask yet another question. I want to remind the member that it is not the opposition's job to make the government feel better about the inaction of its steps. What I really would like to see is fairness and a bar of dignity. As the great Shania Twain says, “That don't impress me much”.

80 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Mar/21/22 4:37:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her very refreshing speech. It is good to hear people propose progressive, tangible ideas. The Liberal Party had already promised a 3% surtax during the election campaign. The NDP's motion today expands the application of that surtax to oil companies and big box stores. Could my colleague explain this decision to expand the surtax to those two sectors?

69 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mar/21/22 4:37:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for that thoughtful question. I really appreciate it because one of the things I think is really important in this conversation is that the federal government has the tools in place to measure where wealth is extreme and where profits are coming in at high amounts. The reality is we know that people living in Canada, everyday people, are seeing poverty grow. They are making decisions that I think Canada does not want them making. This is why we brought forward these additions. These are for folks who have been making a profit in excess of $1 billion. It is only fair that when one is making an excess of profit that we open up those doors and make sure that no one is left behind. Unfortunately, we have systems that continuously leave some people behind. They think that crumbs, a little extra here and there, will make a difference. We need to see that bar of dignity rise. That is why we proposed this motion.

174 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Mar/21/22 4:39:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while big box stores, big banks and big oil companies are making record profits, over half of Canadians are struggling to keep up with the cost of living. I have heard Conservatives in this House imply that extreme wealth inequality is inevitable, but consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have made choices that got us here. Can the member speak to the responsibility of the current government to own up to what it has done, what got us here, and to take action now?

85 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Mar/21/22 4:39:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's question is really perceptive and thoughtful, because that is the reality. What we are seeing is consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments continue to make decisions, make laws and not fight the laws that grow the wealth of the wealthiest people in this country, and that leaves everybody else behind. As we go through these hard times, as we face challenges of inflation, and I am from B.C. so know how high the cost of gas is, we see that everyday workers, everyday people, and those who cannot work because they have health issues, cannot get ahead or even reach dignity. Therefore, the government has to take action.

113 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/21/22 4:40:27 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Housing. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

71 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Mar/21/22 4:40:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I truly believe that every member of Parliament is here for similar reasons. We want to do right by our community and we all have an overall goal of leaving Canada a better place than when we found it. I have always told people in my riding that the politics come into play because we have different ideas on how to achieve those very same ends. In the present climate in Canada, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are really suffering. There is a lot of struggle out there. This is one of those moments in time when they are really crying out for bold policy. This is an opportunity for members of Parliament to ask themselves why they are here and if they are actually making a difference in people's lives. I acknowledge that the motion before the House today, the motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party of Canada, is non-binding on the government. What it does do is send a powerful message because if the House were to vote in favour of this motion it would send a signal to the cabinet. It would send a signal that most of the MPs in this place, representing the majority of Canadians, want to see a shift in government policy to level the playing field and to address the very real concerns of Canadians. What are we asking the government to do? We are essentially asking it to commit to a campaign promise and commit to a promise that was made in its budget. Excuse me if I sound a bit jaded. They sound like pretty simple things. However, I have been a member of the House since 2015, and I have a lot of unfortunate experience with Liberal promises that were left by the wayside. It is a government that once promised electoral reform and cynically left it in the dust. It is a government that has promised sincere action on climate change, yet invested billions of public taxpayer dollars into a pipeline. Imagine investing in fossil fuel infrastructure in this day and age when all of the evidence of climate change surrounds us every day. What kind of a message is that sending to our children? By every metric, whether looking at housing, at fuel, at the cost of food or at wealth inequality, there are multiple failures to be found. I acknowledge that my friends on the Liberal side are, in their way, trying to bring policy to address some of those core concerns. I will acknowledge that. However, if we look at the evidence on the ground we see that they are failing. They are not properly addressing those very real concerns that Canadians have. In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, in one year we saw housing prices go up anywhere from 30% to 40%. That is simply unsustainable. When I have families in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, families with two incomes earning six figures, who are put on the street or given notice because the landlord sold their property to take advantage of the skyrocketing housing costs and, with their income level, they cannot find a place to rent, that is a real problem. That is an indictment on the current federal government's housing policy. The market is failing Canadians and, therefore, we must find non-market solutions to address this housing crisis. Regarding fuel prices, I acknowledge that is something out of our control. There is a war going on in Ukraine and oil is one of the most volatile energy sources on earth. It always will be. It always has been. However, when we see price increases in my riding going up to over two dollars a litre last week, that puts a real strain on family budgets. It increases the cost of everything, from building materials to the cost of food, pretty much everything that is transported by rail or by truck. Families need a break. If we look at wealth inequality, over the last two years we see Canadian families who have been having to deal with so much. We see that the richest people in Canada have increased their wealth by billions of dollars. That is not fair. Therefore, what are we asking the government to do with its promises that were made in the campaign and in the budget? We are proposing that it add a 3% surtax on banks and insurance companies with profits of over $1 billion. Just so that is clear for the residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, a company will have had to have made a profit of $1 billion before the tax would apply. It is simply not right when we have families struggling with the basic necessities of life to be seeing those record profits being made and they are at the other end. We are simply asking that we honour those promises, that we tax extreme wealth at the high end and that we reinvest that money into our communities, reinvest it into working families and reinvest it to make our communities resilient. I have listened to some of the debate today and Conservatives talk about addressing inflation through building more pipelines, giving a GST holiday to fuel or getting rid of the carbon tax. In my view, that is extremely short-sighted policy because it does nothing to address the inflationary pressures of climate change. It also ignores the fact that oil and gas are, as I said before, our most volatile energy sources. Speaking of the volatility of that as a fuel source, the inflationary pressures that will come to us from climate change are going to be measured in the trillions of dollars. If we think that fuel prices now are high, imagine what is going to happen when we have conflicts arising around the world because of the scarcity of water resources or the fact that agriculture has been devastated or that coastal cities are inundated because of rising flood waters. These have real economic costs. Forget the ecological argument; listen to the economic argument. How many future tax dollars are we prepared to spend to address these issues? We know they are going to drive up costs. To suggest in the House that we should build more pipelines and that we should have some kind of small short-sighted tax holiday is completely ignoring what the costs will be if we continue to use fossil fuels and continue to let climate change go on a runaway course. In the reinvestment in our communities, I will say what I would do in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have a few areas where that money could be reinvested, the opioids crisis for one. I have too many residents on the streets of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who are playing Russian roulette with their lives every time they buy toxic street drugs. We have a massive housing crisis. We need to reinvest those funds to make sure that people have the right to housing established clearly, and we need the government to step in and build those non-market units. As for pharmacare and dental care, if we want to help working families, why do we not help them with the unexpected budgetary costs they have with dental bills and pharmacare bills? However, when we have given the House the opportunity to vote on those measures, talking about coalitions here, what about the Liberal-Conservative coalition? They combined have voted against dental care. They voted against a wealth tax. They voted against pharmacare, all measures that are designed to help working families. Words are cheap, but luckily this place keeps the receipts. It is noted in Hansard and in the way both those parties have voted. I want to make that very clear. We could also invest in bigger health transfers. I know my Bloc colleagues have talked repeatedly about provincial demands for more federal health transfers, and I know that has been a demand of all provinces. Surely the last two years have shown us how strained our health care systems have been. This is a real opportunity for us to reinvest those excess profits to build a system we can all be proud of, the system we know we can have in Canada where no one is left behind, to honour the vision of the people who built it in the first place. I will end by saying that I hope all of my colleagues in the House will find it in themselves to vote for this motion and to signal to the people of Canada that they are serious about enacting the bold policies that we need.

1456 words

All Topics

Mr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.)

Mar/21/22 4:50:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of sitting beside my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on the flight last night and talking about one part of the motion, which is the creation of a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. In the budget last year, we provided funding to set up a beneficial ownership registry for federally incorporated companies. In our platform this past election, we campaigned on a homebuyers' bill of rights to have such a registry for property. Unfortunately, provincially regulated companies would not be covered by that, and land ownership is provincially regulated. I was wondering if the member could speak a bit more on the third part of that motion, on creating a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry, if that is for property or for companies, and what he sees as the federal government's role in working with the provinces so they adopt similar measures.

151 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Mar/21/22 4:51:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my friend is a fellow British Columbian, he would know our provincial NDP government has enacted such a policy. It does cover the area of provincial jurisdiction, so I would like to see the federal government move ahead with this. I referenced promises that were made. One of my colleagues, earlier in an intervention, and I believe it was the member for Victoria, pointed out that key promise was missing from the mandate letters of two ministers. I would encourage the member to speak to the ministers to ensure it is still on the table, because it is something we very much want to see the federal government move ahead on to establish that transparency within the areas it has clear jurisdiction over.

126 words

All Topics

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

Mar/21/22 4:52:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague did lament the fact that somehow some of the parties in the House are not supporting NDP motions or initiatives. The problem is that, whenever the NDP brings forward a motion, it always has poison pills in it that force us, as Conservatives, to vote against these motions. For example, on this motion we are debating today, I believe there is a consensus in the House to support a beneficial ownership registry. We all support that. However, of course the NDP plugs in taxes and more taxes that all trickle down to the consumer. I am going to ask my colleague from British Columbia why it is that the NDP has this proclivity to undermine its own policy initiatives by adding things it knows we will not and cannot support. It seems counterintuitive that if it wants something to come through that it would do that.

150 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Mar/21/22 4:54:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it quite funny that Conservatives would regard a tax on profits of over $1 billion to be a “poison pill”. I would love for the Conservative candidate in the next election in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to explain to voters how that is a poison pill. The argument that companies are just going to simply pass these on to consumers is simplistic and does not reflect reality. Conservatives need to ask themselves why they continuously vote against measures that are trying to level the playing field and ensure that working families can get ahead.

101 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 42