House of Commons Hansard #196 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.

Topics

Rail ServicePrivate Members' Business

7:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Rail ServicePrivate Members' Business

7:30 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Rail ServicePrivate Members' Business

7:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Rail ServicePrivate Members' Business

7:30 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 22, 2015 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

TransportationAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

Independent

Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Uber. First of all, it is important to know that the people who talk on behalf of Uber in Canada are advertising and public relations people. The company that collects money from customers is called Uber B.V., which is a Dutch company that belongs to Uber International C.V. This company is headquartered in Bermuda, a tax haven that does not have any taxes and guarantees banking secrecy. Therefore, when someone uses Uber they are, quite simply, supporting tax havens. Uber B.V. has no known office in Canada. This company is not registered on any business registry in Canada or Quebec. In fact, this company siphons money from Canada but does not pay taxes. The only way to contact the company's principals is to use email, since there is no known local phone number.

Uber boasted that it was about 30% cheaper than a regular taxi. We should ask ourselves how that is possible.

First, we know that the taxi industry is regulated to ensure the safe and efficient transportation of people. Taxicabs are appropriately insured and regularly inspected. The drivers are known. That kind of oversight generates costs, of course, but it also protects the public. Uber is not subject to these regulations at all, so it is saving money at the expense of client safety.

Second, from a taxation perspective, we have, on the one hand, the taxi industry, which in Montreal is primarily made up of independent drivers who pay all taxes. Through its billing system, the industry reports all of the income earned by its workers and operators. On the other hand, we have Uber, where the application of tax rules is pretty vague. Some say that Uber collects GST and QST on behalf of its drivers, but others say it does not. There are no GST and QST numbers associated with the transactions. Some say that there is no receipt that includes the GST and QST. Confusion reigns.

One thing is certain, however: Uber BV, which operates UberX, is not listed in either Quebec's or Canada's business registry. We also have to ask ourselves this: is Uber BV giving Revenue Canada the names of all the individuals who are bringing in transportation revenues? Will the Canadian government use its laws and regulations to rein in this business, which, in my opinion, is sucking the lifeblood out of Canada's economy? Uber is affecting the lives of Canadians as well as businesses, including the taxi industry, which pays its income tax and creates real wealth in our society.

We must take action. This is crucial. We can no longer accept this kind of situation.

TransportationAdjournment Proceedings

7:35 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's comments and she really has two issues. One issue is whether Uber is a legitimate company. The other issue is about businesses paying income tax. Quite frankly, it is the responsibility of all businesses and all Canadians to pay any taxes that are applicable.

Participation in the underground economy hurts everyone. We all understand that. It not only undermines the competitiveness of honest businesses that abide by the law, but it also undermines our government's efforts to reduce the tax burden for families and businesses.

Uber drivers are required to report all income earned through Uber and to comply with any GST/HST reporting requirements, like all Canadians. It is the responsibility of every driver to understand his or her legal and tax obligations.

Failure to comply with these obligations can lead to serious consequences. Drivers who do not register and collect GST/HST or who fail to comply with income tax obligations as required, may be subject to interest and/or penalties, depending on the circumstances, in addition to having to pay the tax that should have been paid in the first place.

Combatting the underground economy is a priority for our government. Through the implementation of our new three-year strategy, “Reducing Participation in the Underground Economy”, the CRA is taking action to reduce the social acceptability of and participation in the underground economy.

As well, the Minister of National Revenue recently announced a new underground economy advisory committee, comprised of representatives from key industry stakeholder organizations. It is the first of its kind. These measures will protect the fairness and integrity of the tax and benefit system and ensure a level playing field for all businesses and taxpayers, while allowing us to continue to provide tax relief for hard-working Canadians.

The regulation of taxi services falls outside of the CRA mandate. Therefore, the aspect of the question dealing with regulation is not one on which we can actually comment. However, we recognize that the underground economy is an issue of significant concern for our provincial and territorial partners. We are committed to continuing to work closely with the provinces and territories and engaging with other key stakeholders to ensure we achieve our common goals of tackling the underground economy in a meaningful and lasting manner.

Let me be clear. The rules apply equally to all Canadians. Unscrupulous business owners of any business, or in any industry or in any business sector participating in the underground economy and not paying their fair share of taxes will be held responsible, and there will be consequences.

TransportationAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

Independent

Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech. It is clear that he wants to fight tax evasion.

One thing is certain: whether we are talking about Uber, Uber B.V. or Uber International C.V., whatever name this company is giving itself to get around the rules or paying taxes, under the guise of a cool, hi-tech, environmentally friendly carpooling service, it is sucking the lifeblood out of our economy and not producing wealth. It is unfair competition for the taxi industry, which is paying all its taxes and insurance.

My colleague said he did not really know how it worked. I think that the government has to make sure that Uber, Uber International C.V., whatever name it gives itself, is paying its taxes. It is not just Uber drivers who have to pay their taxes, but Uber itself as well. That is important.

TransportationAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS

Mr. Speaker, what I said, I thought quite clearly, was that all business entities in Canada were expected to pay any applicable taxes that they would have owing.

The CRA is always working to identify and address underground economy activities wherever they may occur. The CRA's capacity to combat the underground economy is as strong as ever. Its comprehensive, multi-year strategy is building upon years of experience and success, and places great emphasis on collaboration and co-operation between all levels of government, industry and other stakeholders.

It is our government's priority to maintain the integrity of our tax system and to ensure a level playing field for all Canadians. Our actions in that regard are a testament to that commitment.

InfrastructureAdjournment Proceedings

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, the question I rose on originally remains a persistent problem in this country: cities do not have the resources they need to both build the platform for economic success or even maintain the infrastructure required to sustain a modern economy.

The question, in particular, was around the city of Regina, a city which I visited. I spoke with the board of trade, the mayor, councillors, housing advocates, a long list of individuals who are looking for partnership in Ottawa and instead quite often are subjected effectively to a series of promises that never seem to arrive in these cities. If one were to ask the mayor directly, “Did you get money from the new building Canada fund last year”, the answer would be no. There was federal support from things like the gas tax started by Paul Martin, perfected by others, and added to by the current government, but it is still existing money which builds on a base of funding. It is not money for new infrastructure and it certainly is not money to repair existing and aging infrastructure. This question is pertinent certainly as we head toward the budget tomorrow.

There has also been no money delivered this year from the new building Canada fund. It is back-end loaded. The fund arrives in 10 years' time. That money is needed now by the cities. The cities are pleading with the federal government to get the money moving, but because of the delay in the budget and because of the way in which the program is currently structured, the money is not going to arrive this year either. This means we have now lost two construction seasons not due to the promise of infrastructure funding, but the design of the system and the delivery of the funds themselves.

My question is a very simple one. Is there going to be a stop to the money being back-end loaded? Is there going to be an annual amount of infrastructure funding delivered to cities in a predictable and robust way that allows them not only to do multi-year planning but to do annual construction build-out so they do not have to wait 10 years for the government's promises to arrive in their cities? In Regina, the needs are very clear. It needs $30 million for a new transit facility. It needs millions for highway overpasses to facilitate a modern economy, which is starting to struggle without being diversified and they need to diversify. It needs $67 million for the railroad revitalization program, a major redevelopment of the downtown core, which would boost the city's capacity to raise taxes and to part with Ottawa.

Is money going to arrive on an annual basis, and if it is, how much is coming this year and how much is coming next year?

InfrastructureAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Kitchener—Waterloo Ontario

Conservative

Peter Braid ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the new building Canada plan was announced in budget 2013. It has been open for business since March 2014. The timing of this year's budget, tomorrow, has absolutely no impact on the rolling out of the most significant investment in infrastructure in Canada's history.

Our Conservative government's support for public infrastructure has never been stronger. Whether it is in roads and bridges, public transit or water systems, we understand that investments in infrastructure are key to building strong, safe and prosperous communities.

Since 2006, in fact, we have dramatically increased the average annual federal funding for thousands of provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure projects across the country. We are building on Canada's historic investments with $75 billion for public infrastructure over the next 10 years. This includes, of course, the $53 billion new building Canada plan that I mentioned.

As Canada's largest and longest federal infrastructure plan, the new building Canada plan provides predictable and flexible funding so that municipalities from coast to coast to coast can address their most pressing infrastructure priorities and plan for the long term. Our new building Canada plan ensures support through a number of different funds.

The federal gas tax fund supplies almost $2 billion in funding per year. Since 2006, our Conservative government has extended, doubled, indexed, and made the gas tax fund permanent. We have also expanded its eligible categories so that it covers a wider range of types of projects. Further, municipalities can pool, bank, and borrow against their gas tax funding.

Another major component of the plan is the new building Canada fund, made up of a national infrastructure component for projects of national significance, and the provincial and territorial infrastructure component, which has dedicated funding for provinces and territories. Under the provincial and territorial infrastructure component, each Canadian province and territory receives a base amount plus a per capita allocation over the 10 years of the program.

Not only are the new building Canada plan programs well under way, as I mentioned, but significant funding in public infrastructure continues to flow from the original plan that we announced in 2007, and other federal programs to support infrastructure projects across the country.

Canadian municipalities, including Regina, Saskatchewan, and Sydney, Nova Scotia, have unprecedented ways in which they can put this federal funding to work in their communities. Through the plan, Saskatchewan will benefit from more than $1 billion in dedicated federal funding, including almost $437 million under the new building Canada fund, and an estimated $613 million under the federal gas tax fund.

Nova Scotia will also benefit from more than $1 billion in dedicated federal funding, including more than $426 million under the new building Canada fund, and an estimated $580 million under the federal gas tax fund.

While Regina and Sydney can count on their federal allocations through the gas tax fund, we will be pleased, of course, to consider investing in projects that both Regina and Sydney deem to be important, just as we will for all municipalities under the new building Canada fund. Municipalities must identify their infrastructure projects, and provinces must prioritize them.

Our government is committed to creating jobs, promoting growth, and building strong, prosperous communities across this great country.

InfrastructureAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, that was more or less the answer I received the first time, and that is problematic.

For example, in Nova Scotia, one city alone, Cape Breton Regional Municipality, has a $450 million need for a new water plant. That need was driven by changes that were decided upon in this House. When federal water standards were changed, obligations were downloaded, or side-loaded as cities often describe it, onto the regional municipalities.

The amount of money for the province is equal to the need of one single municipality. That shows how inadequate the funding is. Not only that, the money that is being talked about does not arrive for 10 years.

The question is very simple. Will the budget tomorrow, and the plan of the government, make that money an annual amount, and make it predictable to cities? Is it sufficient to get things like the water plant in Sydney, Nova Scotia, built, or are they going to have to wait 10 years?

The subsequent question is, where is the money for the repair of existing infrastructure? We have heard the plans for new infrastructure, but repair is just as critical.

The final component to this, which flows from many of these projects, is the issue of housing. Housing is not an eligible category under the infrastructure program. As a result, wait lists across the country are magnificent. There are 200,000 people in Toronto alone waiting for housing.

I will give a quick recap. Is the money going to be annual? Is it going to be more than is currently announced? Is housing going to be eligible?

InfrastructureAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. Support is provided as projects are approved. As municipalities commence work, expenses are incurred and those receipts are submitted. It is a very simple and straightforward process.

As I mentioned, the Conservative government's support for public infrastructure has never been stronger. Since 2006, our government has dramatically increased the average annual federal funding for thousands of provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure projects across the country. We are building on these historic investments, with $75 billion over 10 years, including the $53 billion new building Canada plan. Canadian municipalities have unprecedented ways in which they can put this federal funding to work in their communities.

I might also add that our investments in public infrastructure under our Conservative government are three times greater than the previous Liberal government.

Our government is committed to creating jobs, promoting growth and building strong, prosperous communities across the country.

InfrastructureAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:53 p.m.)