Debates of Sept. 29th, 2017

Taxation

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, how ironic for a member who is reading his question to call me a parrot.

I would like to remind him of one thing: our government is focused on growth, something that the Conservatives did not manage to accomplish during their 10 years in office because they were busy giving tax breaks to the wealthy. We have created 400,000 jobs, most of which are full-time positions. Our GDP has experienced the strongest growth in 15 years. Prosperity and growth are important to us, but prosperity must be inclusive.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind the member for Mégantic—L'Érable that the House listened patiently while he asked his question, so he should listen to the answer, even if he does not like it.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

Canadian Heritage

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, francophone communities, including Quebec, are not very happy that the Liberals signed a secret deal with Netflix without any guarantee that the company would invest in French-language content.

That is completely unfair to our Canadian broadcasters, who have to play by the rules. Even worse, this deal will further jeopardize the culture of Quebec and other francophone communities.

It is simple. The Liberals are going to let an American company decide the future of our culture. Do the Quebec members across the way think it is a good idea to sub-contract the protection of our culture to the Americans?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, our creators and artists work every day to tell unique stories about who we are. Our government always stands up for Canadian artists.

What is more, we have already invested $1.9 million in arts and culture. We reinvested in the CMF to protect our productions, and we invested $125 million to ensure that our stories are shared with the world. We believe in our artists, and we are adapting our system to the digital age.

Taxation

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government is calling this a historic agreement. It is certainly a historic agreement for Netflix.

As the saying goes, when the cat is away, the mice will play. Clearly, many people across the aisle are asleep at the switch. American multinationals must have lulled them into a deep sleep. After the Liberals promised to actively fight tax evasion, the Minister of Canadian Heritage signed a tax evasion contract with Netflix.

Who will be the next lucky winner—Google? Facebook? With all of CRA's purported efforts to combat tax evasion, is the Minister of National Revenue pleased to see her colleague from Canadian Heritage signing secret deals with multinationals so they can avoid paying their fair share?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to talk about all the hard work we have done to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Over the past two years, we have invested over $1 billion, which has put us well on our way to recovering $25 billion. In fact, 335 cases have been transferred for criminal investigation and millions of dollars in fines have been imposed, including $44 million in third-party penalties.

We will keep working for Canadians and continue to keep our promises.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, it sounds like the answer is yes.

Last year, Netflix said it would continue to spend “hundreds of millions of dollars” in Canada, but yesterday the heritage minister bragged about a sweet deal she scored by securing $100 million a year. That is about one per cent of Netflix's budget just for content creation. This happened at the same time that in Canada, Netflix raised its prices.

This is a great PR opportunity for Netflix, and it gets to maintain its unfair advantage in the marketplace. A fantastic deal for Netflix, but what did we get?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to growing our creative industries. The deal with Netflix is part and parcel of that. It is a huge, huge vote of confidence by a global player, for the first time ever, to make an investment. It is a vote of confidence in the strength of our Canadian creators. This is a good news story: $500 million over five years. We are world leaders, and this has now been recognized by a global player. Nothing but good news here.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us do some math. Netflix raises its prices by $1 a month on Canadian accounts. With the millions of users in Canada, that generates about $72 million a year of new revenue for Netflix. To be clear, nearly three-quarters of this massive commitment from Netflix is coming directly from the pockets of Canadians. We already knew that Netflix intended to maintain investments in Canada. Knowing this, will the minister admit that Canadians were ripped off?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, this deal with Netflix speaks volumes to the strength of the creative sector here in Canada. This is a global player that for the first time has invested outside the United States, and it chose Canada. Canadians love Netflix. Netflix loves the Canadian creative sector. This is a win-win for Canada. It is a win-win for consumers. It is a win-win for our creators. This is a good news story.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are learning more about who wins and who loses under the Liberals' tax-change plan. It is very simple. Mom-and-pop shop owners lose. Family-run restaurants lose. Farm families lose. Big Bay Street firms, like the finance minister's own Morneau Shepell, they win. Clearly the minister is in a conflict. He preaches the gospel of tax fairness while sheltering his own family fortune from the harmful changes he proposes. Can the finance minister explain why small-business owners in my riding should pay more, while he and his companies get a free ride?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, we have always been very clear. The fact is that our tax system currently has some inequities that we want to fix. Currently, some wealthy Canadians are encouraged to incorporate so they can access tax benefits that are out of reach for the vast majority of Canadians.

Our goal is to ensure that our small business tax rate remains the lowest in the G7, that the middle class tax rate remains low, and that we bring a bit more fairness to a tax system where fairness is in short supply.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, the small-business owners in my riding did not make their fortunes on Bay Street, they are not trust fund babies, and they certainly do not have any taxpayer-funded nannies. The small-business owners in my riding are middle-class working families that work hard, take risks, and make sacrifices to put food on their tables and to support our community. Why should these families pay more while the minister and the Prime Minister protect their own family fortunes from these harmful Liberal tax changes?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, if he wants to talk about passive investment and passive investment income, then it is interesting to note that 1.7% of Canadian businesses hold 80% of the income generated by passive investment. That is essentially 29,000 businesses. We are not targeting small businesses or middle class entrepreneurs. Our objective is to have greater tax fairness to ensure that everyone pays their fair share.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, my constituent Dacan owns a successful local family business. He has managed to raise a family of six and has contributed to the local economy through employment. Dacan ruptured his patella and had surgery, with serious complications, which prevents him from walking. There were no benefits. There were no sick days. There are no vacations. His wife drives him to work and job sites. He continues to bid on projects, and he supervises while he is infirm. How is it fair that hard-working people like Dacan will have to now pay more taxes while the fortunes of the Prime Minister and the finance minister are unaffected?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his poignant question.

I want to reassure him on one point: we will always be behind small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. They are the cornerstone of our growth. That is why we are keeping the small business tax rate low. We are encouraging them to reinvest in growth and innovation in their business. We will always stand behind our small business owners.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, every year, hundreds of youth take part in a fantastic arts program at the Moulin La Lorraine arts centre. This program is made possible by the generosity of Assurances Pouliot & Associés Inc. of Sainte-Justine, which pays for bus transportation.

However, the tax hike the Liberals want to foist on our local SMEs would put these worthy community initiatives in jeopardy.

Why is the Minister of Finance taking aim at youth cultural development in Lac-Etchemin, while his company, Morneau Shepell, and the Prime Minister's fortune will be unaffected?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I will say it again: our goal is to build a fairer tax system. We have seen that some of the wealthiest Canadians are encouraged to incorporate so they can access tax benefits that are out of reach to the middle class. This likely does not apply to the situation the member was talking about. To give you an example, a professional earning $300,000 can incorporate and use income sprinkling to save $48,000, the equivalent of the average salary in Canada.

These benefits are legal, but the fact that they are available to some Canadians but not others is unfair. That is what we want to fix.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is not fairness, it is hypocrisy. The Prime Minister was clear on how he feels about small businesses: they are just tax shelters used by wealthy Canadians to avoid paying taxes. The Liberals framed their tax grab on business owners as an attempt to close loopholes for the wealthy 1% and those who live in gated communities, those like the Prime Minister and the finance minister.

The Liberals talk a good game, but their actions tell a different story. While small-business owners face tough choices, the fortunes of the Prime Minister and the finance minister will be sheltered. Fairness? In what universe is that fair?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, we will always stand behind the middle class. The first thing we did when we came to power in 2015 was raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% in order to lower taxes for nine million Canadians. We brought in a more progressive Canadian child benefit that will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Meanwhile, for 10 years, the Conservatives gave tax breaks to the rich. Our goal is to help the middle class, help SMEs, and introduce greater tax fairness into our tax system.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Yes, Madam Speaker, they will stand behind business owners with their hands in their pockets.

Businesses thrive on stability, and all they see from the government is fiscal uncertainty. They worry for their employees and their families. Will kids be able to go to university, or will they have to settle for less? What choices will they have to make? Will they let people go or just close up shop altogether?

Why is the Prime Minister conducting this assault on the middle class and those working hard just to stay in it?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I think that we made it very clear to Canadians during the last election campaign that we were committed to help the middle class by reducing inequality and reviewing the inequities in our tax system. That is what we want to correct. We are at the consultation stage right now, and the consultations are set to conclude next week. We are listening to Canadians, farmers, and small business owners to make sure that we get this right.

Indigenous Affairs

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have learned that the government spent more than $110,000 fighting a first nations girl in court. It fought to block payment for the orthodontic treatment that cost just $6,000 to save her teeth. Instead the government spent 18 times more money fighting her in court. This is sickening. The government promised a nation-to-nation relationship. It promised that the relationship with first nations people is the most important.

How can the Liberals stand and repeat those lines while continuing to fight first nations kids in court?

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, while I cannot speak about the specifics of a case, we know that there are issues with the non-insured health benefits program. This is not something new.

I have met with deputy Grand Chief Smallboy, Chief Janice Henderson, Chief Patricia Big George, Chief Collins, and Grand Chief Daniels, among others. We are all committed to reforming the system, and we will build upon the work we have all begun. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Indigenous Services are absolutely committed to making improvements to the non-insured health benefits program and are taking other steps toward true reconciliation.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Human Rights Tribunal was clear: the government must stop taking legal action against indigenous children who need medical treatment. That is clear and something that could be done immediately. However, the government spent more than $110,000 fighting a child over a $6,000 dental procedure. It makes no sense.

Will the minister commit to ending this fight immediately, covering the medical costs, and ending the systematic denial of services for indigenous children?