SoVote

Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

Oct/6/22 10:33:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Montreal for his speech and for starting this debate. I would like to ask him a question. I sincerely believe that simply holding this debate today will not only have a beneficial effect on Canadian families facing this increase in grocery prices, but will also send to the companies a message that we are watching them. Parliament is aware of the situation, and members are listening to their constituents. Does my colleague agree with me that this is an important debate to hold, in order to show everyone that Parliament is taking care of this issue?

106 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Oct/6/22 10:33:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree that this is an important debate, especially since the NDP brought it to the House. We would not have brought it forward if we did not think it was important for people, for our society. We took that initiative. It is true, we are sending a message with this debate. We are telling them that we are watching and that we are keeping an eye on them. Then there needs to be action. That is the second part. We are setting the stage, bringing up the problem and analyzing the situation. After that, we want an investigation by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We are also asking the Competition Bureau to investigate. Then, there must be regulatory, fiscal and legislative action to ensure that these situations do not happen again.

137 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Oct/6/22 10:34:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about greed inflation. I prefer to call it unjust inflation. I think that is more appropriate. Right now, all Canadians are feeling the rising cost of absolutely everything. I wonder why my colleague and the other members of his costly coalition chose to vote against the recent opposition motion calling on the government not to raise taxes on all Canadians, when every Canadian needs more money in their pockets. Why does the NDP support raising taxes and the government's decision to triple the carbon tax? That is the real question.

96 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Oct/6/22 10:35:32 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31 Bill C-30

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. The Conservative Party sees premiums as a tax. An EI premium is insurance in the event of a loss of employment. A pension plan premium is an investment for the future. We will need this money when we are older. There is a world of difference between the two concepts. It is important to tell the truth. We are taking action to help people. We forced the Liberals to pay for dental care for children under the age of 12. This year, families could receive $1,300 per child. We forced the Liberals to double the GST credit. These two measures are in Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. People will be able to get between $250 and $500 starting this year. These are real measures that the NDP is putting forward. We forced the Liberals to put them in place, and they will provide people with practical support.

164 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Oct/6/22 10:36:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke of tax havens, and I think it is important to spend some time talking about that. Not only is the government not doing anything, but it actually participated in the creation of these tax havens. In 1994, the Chrétien government gave companies permission to repatriate income that they were earning in Barbados without paying tax in Canada. From that moment, Barbados became the tax haven of choice for Canadian companies. Even Paul Martin registered his shipping company in Barbados. Worse yet, in 2009, the Harper government decided that Barbados was not enough. It made another regulatory change. It decided that, once Canada entered into an information sharing agreement with a tax haven, it would be possible to repatriate profits without paying tax. It created 18 new ones. Not only did the Conservatives and the Liberals do nothing, they took it one step further and participated in the creation of tax havens. My colleague agrees with me that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have been speaking out on this issue for years, but that neither of our parties is going to form government. Would he also agree with me that the only way to combat tax havens is for Quebec to become independent?

214 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Oct/6/22 10:37:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague on why it is so important to fight tax havens, but here is where we part ways. The Bloc Québécois will never be in power, but we might be. It is entirely possible—more possible, anyway. It is true that both Liberals and Conservatives have for years failed to take action on tax havens. It is a perennial problem. Barbados alone is sheltering $80 billion Canadian. What about the Cayman Islands? Believe it or not, there are more companies registered in the Cayman Islands than there are people who live there. Either they are very entrepreneurial people, or the system is not working at all.

118 words

Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Oct/6/22 10:38:24 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31 Bill C-30

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kings—Hants. I am pleased to rise in the House and address this important topic today. The motion before us rightfully focuses on the impacts of inflation on Canadians and the challenge it is causing, particularly with food prices. As my colleagues on all sides of the House know, there are many drivers of this global inflation challenge, including the war in Ukraine and the supply chain disruptions in the aftermath of the acute phase of COVID-19. However, the laser focus of our government remains on supporting Canadians through this difficult time and ensuring that our supports are targeted to those who need the support the most and when they need it the most. We are also working to ensure that corporations pay their fair share of tax. Today's motion calls for many actions, which the government has already done or is actively doing, such as closing tax loopholes and directing the Competition Bureau to act if there is evidence of unlawful or anti-competitive behaviour in the marketplace, as the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry did many months ago. However, our government welcomes the opportunity to highlight the work that we are doing to make life more affordable for Canadians and how we intend to continue supporting Canadians through a time of global economic uncertainty. We introduced targeted support measures totalling $12.1 billion this year to help families across the country cope with inflation. Our goal is to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. That is more money in the pockets of Canadians who need it most, when they need it most, without driving inflation. The last two federal budgets have helped to ensure that many of the supports in our affordability plan are in place right now to help Canadians. First, and perhaps most important, the key benefits that Canadians rely on, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada workers benefit, the pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, are all indexed to inflation. This allows them to keep pace with the cost of living. Then in budget 2021, our government enhanced the Canada workers benefit, cut taxes and put up to $2,400 into the pockets of lower-income working families, starting this year. In fact, many recipients have already received this increased support through their 2021 tax return. This enhancement of the Canada workers benefit is extending support to about one million more Canadians and helping to lift nearly 100,000 people out of poverty. In July, we increased old age security for seniors over 75 by 10%. This is the first permanent increase to old age security since 1993; I was 3 years old at the time. This measure is over and above inflation indexing, and it will strengthen the financial security of 3.3 million seniors by automatically paying more than $800 in the first year for those receiving a full pension. Finally, our government continues to work with provinces and territories to build a Canada-wide early learning and child care system. Thanks to a historic investment of up to $27 billion over five years, regulated child care fees will be cut by an average of 50% by the end of this year. In my home province of Alberta, this agreement is already saving families hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of dollars each month. These measures are providing real and much-needed supports to Canadians right now, but we know there is more to do. That is why we have been working so hard on Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Through new legislation that our government has introduced, we are proposing to provide $3.1 billion in additional supports in 2022 to help make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. First, we are doubling the GST credit for six months, which would provide $2.5 billion in additional targeted supports this year to the roughly 11 million individuals and families that already receive the tax credit. Second, we are providing a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit this year to deliver $500 to $1.8 million low-income renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. We are more than doubling the commitment we made in budget 2022, helping twice as many Canadians as initially promised. This will be in addition to the Canada housing benefit that is currently jointly funded and paid out by the provinces and territories. Three, we are providing dental care for Canadians without dental insurance earning less than $90,000, starting with hundreds of thousands of children under 12 this very year, direct payments totalling up to $1,300 per child over the next two years for dental services. This is only the first step, outlined in the supply and confidence agreement, to develop a national dental care program. These are not just empty stats. These programs would provide real support for real individuals. Let me give some examples. A couple in Thunder Bay, with an income of $45,000 and a child in day care, could receive about an additional $7,800 above existing benefits this fiscal year. A single recent graduate in home city of Edmonton, with an entry-level job and an income of $24,000, could receive about an additional $1,300 in new and enhanced benefits. A senior with a disability in Trois-Rivières could receive $2,700 more this year than they did last year. Simply put, our plan is putting more money into the pockets of Canadians who need it the most at the time when they need it the most. In terms of consumer protection, a few months ago, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry asked our department officials to use all available tools to review the variations in pricing and closely monitor any potentially harmful actions. It is completely unacceptable to take advantage of a crisis to raise prices on consumers. We expect the Competition Bureau to act swiftly if there is evidence of unlawful or anti-competitive behaviour in the marketplace. If there is evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry will ask the Competition Bureau to investigate promptly and take appropriate action. We will continue to use all of the tools at our disposal to make life more affordable for Canadians. When it comes to ensuring that companies pay what they owe, we take the fight against tax evasion very seriously. The Minister of National Revenue and the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, continue to fight tax evasion in Canada and abroad. Thanks to a robust system of tax treaties and ongoing government investments, it is harder than ever to hide money abroad. The CRA is well positioned to find tax evaders wherever they are hiding. The measures adopted in budget 2021 comprise many investments and legislative changes to combat tax evasion, including by closing loopholes used to avoid paying tax. There is also an additional $300‑million investment to improve CRA's capacity to fight tax evasion and to modernize Canada's general anti-avoidance rule. These measures will enable the CRA to use all the tools it needs to continue making progress on this important file. Over the last five years, the number of criminal investigations has gone up by 60%. Over the last five years, the number of cases with at least $1 million in tax potential has gone up 189%. Over the last five years, the average fine by conviction has gone up 14%. Every time our government invests in the Canada Revenue Agency to go tax cheats and the people putting money overseas, we get multiple dollars back. Our government is fully aware that Canadians are feeling the effects of high inflation, especially when they go to the grocery store or fill up at the pumps. Canadians can rest assured that they will get support when they need it. Since 2015, our government has brought in real improvements to make life more affordable for Canadians. Our affordability plan builds on these successes and is providing more money to the most vulnerable Canadians this year to help make life more affordable. We remain committed to continuing to build an economy that works for all Canadians and leaves no one behind.

1402 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Oct/6/22 10:47:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was good to hear the member for Edmonton Centre go on and on about all the good programs the government is bringing out that the NDP forced it to do. However, it has studiously avoided doing the one thing that has huge support from Canadians and that would make one of the biggest differences, and that is to put a windfall tax on the excess profits of big oil and gas companies and big grocery store chains. Now we have the CEO of Shell saying to tax them because they have made too much money. Canadians are hurting, yet the Liberals just do not want to do this. The Conservatives certainly do not want to do it. Most Canadians want us to tax the companies that have made windfall profits. Why do they not do that? It would take a huge burden off Canadians who are suffering right now.

152 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/6/22 10:48:35 a.m.
Watch

Before we go to the response, I want to remind members that, if they want to have conversations, maybe they should take them outside, instead of having them across the House of Commons. It interferes with parliamentarians' ability to hear questions or answers, depending on when they are having those conversations. Members can also sit beside another member and have a quiet conversation. The hon. minister has the floor.

69 words

Hon. Randy Boissonnault

Oct/6/22 10:49:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have three things in response to my colleague from the New Democratic Party. First, let us put in context the oil and gas sector. It is 10% of our gross domestic product, it is a critical industry for us and the workers in that industry, and those companies are going to be working with the government to get our country to net zero. They are a critical investor, and they will be making huge investments into CCUS, so we need to make sure that takes place. Let us also take a look at the fact that, in budget 2021, we made sure that we increased tax on the banks with what is essentially a windfall tax, an extraordinary tax for banks and insurance companies. We understand Canadians are experiencing inflation at the grocery stores and at the pumps, and that is why our affordability measures are targeted to focus on those Canadians who need it the most when they need it the most. It will not stoke inflation. It is 1/1,000 of the size of our economy. This is smart and responsible leadership for Canadians when they need it the most.

196 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Oct/6/22 10:50:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the CRA. Could he please explain to the House how he is ensuring that terrorists in this country are not funnelling money to support other countries? What is the CRA doing about that?

40 words

All Topics

Hon. Randy Boissonnault

Oct/6/22 10:50:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency has robust measures in place to make sure that terrorist financing does not take place in our country. We constantly survey these issues to make sure there are no loopholes in that system. If we are talking about the issue on the floor of the House today, which is making sure that we do not have tax evasion, we could look at the Canada Revenue Agency's tax record. In just the investments we have put in to the CRA since we formed government, billions of dollars have come back from individuals and companies that have put their money into tax havens. The CRA is doing its job. It has a great track record on that issue. Not only do we not stand for any financing of terrorist organizations in Canada, we are going to make sure that tax cheats pay their fair share.

150 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Oct/6/22 10:51:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would have liked to hear my colleague say whether he does or does not support the objective of the motion moved by the NDP. The fundamental question being asked is the following: Are we prepared, as a state and as a government, to do more to secure the revenue we need from big corporations who are getting rich at our expense? That is the principle of the motion. I find that the government boasts about its results and that my colleague is exaggerating. When he says that Canada is doing a lot to crack down on tax havens, he believes it. In reality, the federal government is quite complacent. In effect, it has been giving the Canada Revenue Agency more and more money to tackle the problem with little to show for it. The CRA has only gone after a few million dollars. Is the government prepared to do what the motion is calling for in order to ensure tax fairness?

164 words

Hon. Randy Boissonnault

Oct/6/22 10:52:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. We strongly believe that businesses and Canadians must pay their fair share of taxes. That is the basic principle. Let us talk about the results achieved by the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, with the investments made by our government after 10 years under the Conservatives. We invested in the CRA, which has recovered not millions, not hundreds of millions, but billions of dollars from those who did not pay their taxes. In our 2022 budget, we asked banks and insurance companies to pay more.

94 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Oct/6/22 10:53:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege for me to rise in the House, and I am pleased to speak to today's NDP motion. This motion was moved by the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and he knows how much I respect his work. However, I do want to share some concerns I have regarding the wording of the motion. I think it is important for Canadians following the debate in the House to understand that this opposition motion does not compel the government to take any action. It is simply something for members of the House to reflect on. I am not sure whether today's opposition motion is strictly necessary. Some key elements of the motion were adopted yesterday at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food through Liberal, Conservative and Bloc Québécois amendments. We know that affordability and inflation are very important to Canadians right now. I am not opposed to the idea of looking into food prices in this country. However, I do believe that the text of this motion puts the cart before the horse, as the saying goes. In my view, this motion alleges price-fixing occurs before the committee can do a proper inquiry and before we have the opportunity to hear from industry officials about the possibility we are looking at the unintended consequences of the circumstances. As I mentioned, I do not have a whole lot of contention as I stand before the House today, but the text of the motion is almost suggesting this is a fait accompli and absolutely real, and I think there are important questions that need to be asked. However, I do have some concerns about the fact that the motion is almost saying that this is absolutely happening before we have even had the inquiry at the agriculture and agri-food committee. I know that was expressed yesterday by some of my colleagues who sit on that committee. I also want to take a moment to examine specific provisions of the motion. Under paragraph (b), there is a mention of “an affordable and fair food strategy which tackles corporate greed”. It goes on to suggest that perhaps there is something that should be done to control the prices, and although I did not have the opportunity to ask this question specifically to my hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I want to know whether that is suggesting the government has a role to play in setting prices. This is not something we have seen since, I believe, World War II, when the government did intervene in those circumstances to set maximum price caps. The text of the motion does not come right out and say it, but “an affordable and fair food strategy” could include, I presume, regulatory measures. That would be a question I would have for my hon. colleague. Perhaps, if he has the opportunity today in the House, he could address that, or perhaps some of his NDP colleagues who know could raise the point of whether they see that as a specific measure. Yes, it has been done before, but the government should be very cautious that it is absolutely necessary to completely intervene, to set prices in a market, until such time that we have real evidence that the allegations being put forward in the text of the motion today are absolutely true. Paragraph (c) talks about “greedflation”, and I just want to go on record that this is not what the committee agreed to yesterday. Yes, the key elements of the hon. member's motion were adopted, but there was a desire, particularly from the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, to look at the issue. He rightfully pointed out that, before we get to the point of saying this is greed inflation, we should actually call the witnesses to bring forward evidence and hear that before we simply say that it is indeed the case. The committee has agreed to look at inflation in food prices in the entire food retail sector, not just the grocery sector, to be able to ask what questions can be put forward in co-operation with the food retail sector to help support it and avoid large increases in food prices. I am glad the motion mentions the Competition Bureau. I think it is a very important organization that already has the tools needed to study these issues. I have concerns about the capacity of our agriculture committee to be able to get to the bottom of exactly what might be happening. Yes, we can come in and ask questions, but I do not know if there are any forensic accountants who might sit on the agriculture committee. We will ask those questions, but it is ultimately the Competition Bureau that has the tools and expertise to be able to examine whether or not some of the allegations that are being made are indeed happening. It calls into question whether there is anti-competitive behaviour or pricing fixing happening, because the Competition Bureau, as far as I know, has not intervened to date. However, I think it is an important question that all members of this House should reflect on. I think that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford missed an opportunity to raise and mention the importance of the national school food program. We all know that affordability is a top issue right now for many Canadians. This is a program that could make sure we have healthy food in school, ensuring that children who might be living in families who do not have a whole lot of economic means can be supported. It was announced in budget 2021, and I would have liked to see the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford raise it and encourage the government to expedite that allocation of money and work with the provinces and territories to roll it out. The motion also does not call on ways in which the grocery sector itself might be able to help mitigate food prices by implementing a price freeze. I understand it has happened elsewhere and there have been some retail grocers in other jurisdictions around the world that have, by their own will, actually implemented a price freeze. There might be differing opinions on whether or not that is best public policy, but the member failed to mention it in the text of his motion today. I will go on record and say that I have some concern about the way in which the NDP is bringing forward and villainizing corporate leadership. Now, before my friends from the NDP start screaming that I am a friend of big business in Canada and standing up for my corporate friends, it is not that. It is that we want to have a level of decorum in our public policy and in our politics in this country that does not simply make vast statements. I read into the record the other day a Facebook post from the leader of the NDP, which said that CEOs in this country are rigging the system, that they are stealing Canadians' wealth. Boy, what an allegation that is. In making it, he is villainizing an entire group of individuals who serve in corporate leadership in this country. I hope the position of the NDP is not simply that every corporate leader in this country is corrupt, because that does nothing to unify the country. It creates a further divide—

1267 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/6/22 11:01:59 a.m.
Watch

I want to remind members who are coming into the chamber right now to please keep their voices down. There is quite bit of a hum coming across, and I would ask members to keep their voices down.

38 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/6/22 11:02:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can see why the House is filling up. It is because I have the opportunity to have the floor, and people are very interested in what I have to say. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! I really appreciate the opportunity to get to engage with so many of my colleagues, and I look forward to their questions momentarily. However, I think that if NDP members want to put forward more constructive debates in this House, they need to stop villainizing corporate leadership and start putting forward policies. If they want to tax Canadian high-income earners more and put forward other pieces, that is fine and that is their ideological position, but they should stop villainizing individuals who lead corporate entities in this country. It is not helpful, and it is not really going to help us get to a better system and better policies for all Canadians. I will leave it at that, and I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

168 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Oct/6/22 11:03:15 a.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, people are clearly frustrated that they are paying more for food, but the CEOs of big food chains are making big profits on the backs of people, and we are not villainizing these people. For the seven years that the Liberals have been in power, this government has protected the profits of the wealthiest by refusing to toughen the Competition Act to punish the CEOs of the big companies that are overcharging consumers and agricultural producers. Why do the Liberals refuse to ban the price-gouging strategies of wealthy CEOs at the expense of the people?

97 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/6/22 11:04:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, whether it is the grocery code of conduct that the Minister of Agriculture is working with industry to be able to move forward or whether it is putting excess profit taxes as we have on the banking sector, there are a number of ways in which this government is able to move to make sure there is equity in how we tax Canadians and to ask Canadians who have more means to give a bit more to help support public programs that matter for all. I know my ideological viewpoint may not completely align with that of the member opposite. As I have said in my remarks, I would like us to have an investigation before we simply put forward an assertion that there is complete corporate greed in this country. Let us examine the facts. Let us go before the committee before we simply make those allegations in the House.

153 words

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

Oct/6/22 11:04:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is some irony today in the NDP's signing a deal to support three years of Liberal budgets, sight unseen, and then putting forward a motion to call for additional measures that were not contained in the New Democrats' coalition agreement. For the Liberal member who just spoke, is not the best way to address affordability simply to allow people to keep more of their own money? Would the member acknowledge that with cancelling the scheduled tax increases for next year, the tripling of the carbon tax and the increase in payroll tax, rather than the government taking more of their money to spend for them, it would be better to let people keep more of their own money and choose for themselves how they are going to spend it?

133 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 109