House of Commons Hansard #334 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was change.

Topics

Canada Summer Jobs ProgramPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, the third petition I would like to present today deals with the Canada summer jobs values attestation program.

The petitioners note that section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms identifies, among other things, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of belief as fundamental freedoms. They urge the government to defend the freedoms of conscience, protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and withdraw the misguided values attestation from the Canada summer jobs program next year.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I stand here on behalf of petitioners from southern Vancouver Island to recognize that both the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have a mandate to establish an increased protection of Canada's marine and coastal areas. They also recognize that establishing a national marine conservation area for the Southern Strait of Georgia, also known as the Salish Sea, is needed to both protect the marine environment and its species, including the threatened southern resident killer whale.

The petitioners therefore urge the government to continue on with its hard work in working with first nations in the area, with local governments, businesses and non-governmental organizations to get this important protection set up for the area in which we live.

UkrainePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

MaryAnn Mihychuk Liberal Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition signed by residents of Kildonan—St. Paul and other Canadians particularly on this day, defender of Ukraine day, a state holiday in Ukraine, first celebrated in 2015 on this date due to the Russian provocation and military intervention in Ukraine.

Ukrainian Canadians make up approximately 18% of my riding where these individuals laid down roots, set up businesses and organizations to make immeasurable contributions to the development of our country.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to grant Ukrainian nationals visa-free travel to Canada for periods of 90 days.

Impaired DrivingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition from a group called Families For Justice. It is a group of Canadians who have tragically lost a loved one killed by an impaired driver. These Canadians believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime called what it is, vehicular homicide. It is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. Over 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by an impaired driver.

The petitioners call for mandatory sentencing and they are very concerned about the new legislation for legalization of marijuana. They believe that Canada's enforcement is not ready.

Cigar PackagingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House to present a petition signed by cigar aficionados in Alfred-Pellan.

These people purchase cigars to smoke them, but also to offer them as gifts. They are therefore concerned about the impact of neutral packaging for cigars, as provided for in Bill S-5.

Thus the citizens in my riding call upon the government to exempt premium cigars from the proposed tobacco products regulations.

Canada PostPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two petitions.

The first petition is from people who are looking to the government to support postal banking. We know that millions of Canadians desperately need an alternative to payday lenders, which affects the poor and marginalized and indigenous communities. There are 38,000 Canada Post outlets that already exist in rural areas where there are few to no banks.

The petitioners therefore ask the government to support Motion No. 166 to create a committee to study and propose a plan for postal banking under the Canada Post Corporation.

Vision CarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the second petition from Canadians who ask the government to create a national framework for action to promote eye health and vision care. The emerging crisis in eye health and vision care affects all segments of the Canadian population, with Canada's most vulnerable populations, children, seniors and indigenous people, at particular risk.

The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to commit to acknowledge eye health and vision care as a growing public health issue and, through the development of a national framework for action, to promote eye health and vision care, which will benefit all Canadians through the reduction of vision impairment resulting from preventable conditions and the modification of known risks.

Fisheries and OceansPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today.

The first is from constituents within Saanich—Gulf Islands who note that the World Parks Congress has called for expansion of ocean habitat protection in marine protected areas, that there are a number of different classifications of marine protected areas within Canada, some are no-take zones, most are not.

The petitioners request that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans work with other government branches to simplify the various communications and responsibilities and ensure better protection in marine protected areas.

Killer WhalesPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, expressing the deep and growing concern for our southern resident killer whale population. It is, as I think all members know, extremely endangered. Steps have been taken by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The petitioners ask for more to be done while there is still a chance to save the population.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The EnvironmentRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I have received three requests for emergency debate. I will recognize members in the order in which I received their notice.

The hon. member for Beaches—East York.

The EnvironmentRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking leave for the adjournment of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 52, to request an emergency debate with respect to the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5°C. This is the first sitting of the House since that report was released.

Three expert IPCC working groups have issued a dire and urgent warning to governments around the world, including our own, that we must immediately ramp up our efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C or face serious and irreversible consequences.

At the current levels of commitment, the world is on course for a disastrous three degrees of warming. We need a plan to respond to the IPCC report today.

The report states that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban infrastructure and industrial systems and that global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050.

Debra Roberts, co-chair of IPCC Working Group II, has called the report the largest clarion bell from the science community, noting that the next few years are probably the most important in our history.

Jim Skea, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, has explained that limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics, but doing so would require unprecedented changes. He highlighted that the final tick box was political will and that the main finding of his working group was the need for urgency.

We need an emergency debate in Parliament to respond to this report and to ensure that our country takes immediate action to meet our international, intergenerational and moral obligation to do our part in tackling climate change. The scientists have spoken. What we need now is political will. We need to talk about the IPCC's report, and we need to talk about it today.

The EnvironmentRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to follow the letter I tabled with your office on Friday.

Under our Standing Order 52, I want to associate myself with every syllable spoken by the member for Beaches—East York. He is absolutely correct. Following my request, I note that we will hear from the Democratic Party caucus. I appreciate its understanding of the urgency.

If I could just focus on things that were not already said, the reason for an emergency debate is that time is not on our side, not just in the time frame of 10 years, but in the time frame of a number of weeks. The United Nations Conference of the Parties will be convening in Poland, December 2 to 14. That is COP24. It is where the IPCC report will be debated and it is where we will have to see a significant improvement on the targets that governments have accepted from around the world.

Our government has a real opportunity. Our Prime Minister and our Minister of Environment have a real opportunity to leverage up the targets of other countries. As the member for Beaches—East York just said, the changes we are seeing are irreversible. Time is not on our side. A 10-year window to go to 45% below 2010 levels of greenhouse gases will require heroic, massive global efforts, but Canada must change our targets in the near term and be an effective mobilizer at the meetings that take place in less than 30 sitting days time from this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I hope you will use your discretion. I understand these matters are difficult, but the time is now for us, in a non-partisan spirit, to understand the science and grab the one opportunity we have to protect our children's future.

The EnvironmentRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 52(2) to request an emergency debate, as my colleagues from Beaches—East York and Saanich—Gulf Islands have done.

It has been pointed out that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, has just published a special report on the consequences of a 1.5-degree rise in global temperatures. In this 728-page report, the United Nations committee confirms that the consequences of global warming of 1°C are already being felt: more extreme weather events, rising sea levels and decreasing sea ice in the Arctic. The report also stresses the crucial importance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees in order to avoid devastating impacts on ecosystems and human well-being.

To meet the required emission levels outlined by the panel, Canada's emissions will need to be reduced by almost half, far below our current performance. In fact, according to the IPCC, the world needs to reduce its GHG emissions by 45% by 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate change. The panel has made it clear that preventing a single extra degree of heat could make a life or death difference for millions across the globe. It also firmly states that our current course of action is simply not working.

Canada can rise to meet the challenge, but we need decisive leadership and strong actions. Canadians expect their representatives to come together to address the challenges facing our country and our world.

An emergency debate is required in order to allow parliamentarians to address this critical situation and to discuss how Canada can take a leadership role in this climate crisis.

It should also be noted that the date of my party’s next opposition day has still not been set. The IPCC report shows that immediate and far-reaching action is needed to combat climate change. I therefore respectfully ask you to plan an emergency debate on this matter as soon as possible.

Speaker's RulingRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. members for Beaches—East York, Saanich—Gulf Islands and Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for their comments.

I am prepared to grant the emergency debate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-82, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has seven minutes remaining in his speech.

Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing the discussion on Bill C-82, which is a bill dealing with implementing certain provisions of an international agreement with respect to tax avoidance. In my remarks prior to question period, I discussed the particulars of the bill. I discussed our support for the bill. I also touched on a number of other issues that have been important in the debate on this bill and relate to its provision. I want to come back to those likely areas of disagreement among the different parties.

This bill deals with, in substantial part, the activities and operations of the Canada Revenue Agency. It has been interesting throughout this debate to hear various members of different parties talk about how the CRA interacts with different people, how it should treat people. All of us as members of Parliament hear these stories when people come into our offices. We hear of people who have just had terrible disruption occur in their lives as a result of actions of the Canada Revenue Agency, people who are treated unfairly, who may actually have been in the right but are put through a long, disruptive process and are ultimately not compensated for the disruption that is caused to them as a result of CRA activities.

Very early in this Parliament, a member of the Conservative caucus, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, decided to do something about this. My colleague from Calgary Shepard seconded that motion and was very active in this initiative as well. Motion No. 43 was put forward. It created the opportunity for progress toward establishing a duty of care, which should not be that revolutionary, that in interacting with individual taxpayers, the tax authority has a duty of care, that it ought to be fair to them and accord them certain rights and the taxpayers bill of rights ought to have some concrete enforceability. I think if any members asked their constituents whether CRA should have a duty of care, they would say yes. If they asked constituents whether the taxpayers bill of rights should be enforceable, they would say yes.

This motion is very reflective of a Conservative philosophy toward government, which is, in this case, that government ought to be formally constrained in a way that protects the fundamental rights of individuals and that restraint requires us to constructively pass motions and initiatives that ensure government is bound to behave in a way that is proper toward citizens and that respects their rights as individuals and as taxpayers. However, when the motion came up for a vote, every member of every other party who was present chose to vote against it.

Today, when these different issues of challenges that individuals face in their interactions with CRA come up, my colleagues in other parties, the NDP and the Liberal Party, are keen to tell us about the actions they are taking and about the impact on individuals, yet they were unwilling to take the clear, obvious action which would have constrained forever the CRA from engaging in abuses of power in their interactions with individual taxpayers. Maybe I will hear from them during questions and comments. Maybe we will hear from some of the different members who have spoken already today about why they voted against providing taxpayers with that basic protection to ensure they are treated fairly.

I made the point as well that when it comes to issues of tax avoidance, a complicated tax code that limits the manoeuverability of those who cannot hire expensive tax lawyers is particularly regressive. The government has sought to implement tax changes that have always protected the most well connected and well off, while imposing new higher taxes on individuals.

I want to highlight specifically the issue of income splitting, because this is quite revealing about the approach the government took. Under the previous government, we had a policy of allowing everybody to split his or her income, recognizing that two families making the same amount of money should be able to split their incomes such that two families with the same income pay the same amount of tax. The Liberals opposed income splitting and repealed it. They repealed income splitting for the wage earner, and then they said it was a problem to have income sprinkling that potentially allows income splitting for people in the small business world, that somehow that is an inequality, an unfairness that exists in the system. There are a lot of things that argument totally misunderstands.

One could also point out that to the extent there might have been an inconsistency in terms of the ability of some people to do that and others not, it was an inconsistency created by a policy decision of the Liberal government, which was to raise taxes on families by undoing what had been the previous Conservative tax cut for families, which was to bring in income splitting.

We see all these different ways in which Liberals are increasing taxes: the carbon tax, getting rid of income splitting and refusing to pass concrete measures holding CRA accountable. It is important to note these measures target those who actually need tax relief the most. It was Conservatives who targeted tax relief to middle-income and low-income Canadians. We raised the base personal exemption. We lowered the GST. We lowered the lowest marginal tax rate. We did not make any changes to higher income brackets. That is our record: standing up for those who need the help most by cutting their taxes and giving them more power over their own lives.

Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to listen to a lot of the debate today. We often hear about issues surrounding why it is the government is not doing more in terms of providing support for the single parent.

I need to emphasize that there was a significant change with the Canada child benefit program when this government took office, which literally saw millions of dollars added to it. Thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty as a direct result. It has also seen some tax changes so that those who need it the most will, in fact, get the most compared to, let us say, the millionaire family.

Even though my colleague across the way seems to want to focus on that CRA issue, I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts on how important it is that when we take a look at the whole issue of tax it is an issue of tax fairness, and sometimes recognize, such as with the Canada child benefit, that it was a movement in the right direction.

Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, the government is very proud of its efforts to reorganize and repackage the universal child care benefit which was brought in by the Conservatives. I remember a time when the Liberals actively opposed direct payments to parents. They said that people would just use that for beer and popcorn, and that instead the money should be given to provincial bureaucrats. However, our policy of a universal child care benefit was so popular that eventually the Liberals saw the light. It took them a while, but eventually they came around.

I should make a couple of points about the universal child care benefit in comparison. One, it was universal. The other thing is it was a taxable benefit. The members would have to agree that taxable benefits are structurally more progressive because they are taxable based on one's level of income.

The government should be careful about patting itself on the back too quickly for simply not undoing Conservative policy in one case, because unfortunately, it has undone good Conservative policy in many other areas. It has tried to bring in a carbon tax. It got rid of income splitting. It got rid of many tax deductions targeted at making life easier for families and everyday people who do not have the kind of connections that some in the government do.

Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Madam Speaker, it is rare for us to all agree in the House because we have views unique to our own very different parties. Although we often see the same problem from different angles, it is quite clear that each party has its own stereotypes and ways of doing things. We are used to Liberal spin, as they want to manipulate what we think.

We in the NDP have not had the chance to form government, so of course we cannot be blamed for the serious problems that have been affecting Canadians for a long time. The blame lies more with the Liberals or the Conservatives.

I hold my colleague in high regard, but I am sorry to hear him constantly saying that we did not vote for this or that bill they brought before us. I am not a tax expert, but that is disappointing. I do not see what your point is. The point here is to show that these people are not really doing the work necessary to fight tax avoidance and tax havens. That is clearly the point. So why are you coming after us? I do not understand.

Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would remind the member to address his remarks to the Chair and not to individual members.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions ActGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I spoke about my colleague's motion because I wanted to respond to the discussions that took place in the House regarding the CRA's actions and their implications for individuals.

His colleague spoke a lot about how vulnerable some people are to the CRA, and I thought it was important to respond to that. We had the opportunity to address that problem, but unfortunately the House decided not to.

It is certainly important to talk about the specifics of his bill, and I think that, in general, all of the parties support it, but we also need to talk about the major shortcomings in the government's approach to taxing the middle class.