House of Commons Hansard #257 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-50.

Topics

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No 4 stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the report stage of the bill.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 6, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Accordingly the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvas the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Is that agreed?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, in this adjournment debate, I am pleased to follow up on a question that I asked the Minister of Revenue, but was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It seems as though he is the one who will be answering again this evening.

My question primarily has to do with the Netflix agreement. Everyone is starting to understand how this agreement gives Netflix a tax advantage over its competitors. I want to follow up on this issue and on the government's completely twisted logic.

Last week, the government kept spouting the same empty rhetoric to explain why it decided to give Netflix a tax holiday. This tax holiday was granted in exchange for an investment, but there is no guarantee of this investment. Netflix is getting a tax holiday in exchange for the infamous agreement presented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. This is what I would like to talk about today.

The government gave a foreign company a tax break for doing business in Canada without having to abide by same tax rules as its competitors. This company is doing business with Canadian consumers. When it sells a product to consumers in Canada, it does not have to charge GST or federal sales tax because the government is allowing this situation to continue. The government is allowing a company to sell a product, in this case a subscription to Netflix, without charging consumers any GST.

According to the government and its twisted logic, this is not a problem because that is just how things work. That is the government's reason for not forcing Netflix to charge GST. It is possible to make Netflix charge sales tax because several other countries have already done so. Although Netflix is an American company that operates all over the world, it pays sales tax in some countries. Most countries actually have taxes associated with the sale of goods and services.

Canada can make Netflix charge sales tax. It is possible. The argument that the government cannot do this does not hold water. In fact, the government is not even using that argument. In the beginning, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that it was too complicated and that it would require an international agreement to make Netflix charge sales tax. That is completely untrue.

Now the government's argument is that it does not want to impose a new tax on consumers. Based on the government's twisted logic, the GST is a new tax. This is like telling huge multinationals like Target or Walmart that when they come to Canada to sell their goods and services, they will not have to charge their customers GST at the checkout because that would be a new tax. This is like telling a new company that sets up shop in Canada that we cannot ask it to charge GST because that would be a new tax, and Canadians cannot afford any new taxes. That is the logic the Liberals are using today. In other words, they are saying that a foreign company or multinational that has a physical presence in Canada does not have to charge GST, although the store next door does.

Can my colleague explain how the government came up with this logic? How is the GST a new tax for businesses?

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Charlottetown P.E.I.

Liberal

Sean Casey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke for giving us a chance to talk about the many benefits of the agreement with Netflix.

This government strongly believes that the establishment of a new Canadian business in the film and television production sector by Netflix is wonderful news for Canadian creators and producers, and ultimately for our cultural industries as a whole.

The approval of this significant investment in Canada under the Investment Canada Act is yet another indication of our government's strong commitment to growing Canada's creative industries, with new investments that create more opportunities for creators and producers across the country. In fact, this major investment of a minimum of $500 million over the next five years on original productions in Canada will provide them with even greater access to financing, business partners, and ultimately new ways to connect with audiences across the globe.

Such an unprecedented investment by a digital platform in Canada, a first of its kind for Netflix outside of the United States, is yet another confirmation to the world that Canada is a great place to invest, attesting to the creative talent of this country and the strong track record of our cultural industries in creating films and television productions that really stand out.

It is important to make a distinction between the cultural activities of Netflix Canada, which has committed to investing a minimum of $500 million Canadian in the production of Canadian-made films and television series, with the activities of its U.S.-based video streaming service. These are in fact two separate kinds of cultural activities.

It is also important to reiterate that all businesses, including those involved in television and film production that set up and operate in Canada, must abide by the Canadian tax system, which includes GST. Given that Netflix Canada plans to operate a production company in Canada, it will have to comply with all GST-related rules, which could apply to its production activities in Canada.

Lastly I would like to point out that Netflix announced last week that it has acquired the award-winning Canadian film, Les Affamés, written and directed by Robin Aubert, one of the most unique voices in Quebec's cinema, to be made available on the international market as early as this coming March. This represents the first of many Canadian films and television series to be acquired or produced by Netflix Canada as a result of its significant investment announced last fall.

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary is trying to draw a distinction between Netflix Canada and Netflix USA. I know the two are different. However, he avoided answering my question about Netflix USA subscriptions that are not subject to GST. That was probably intentional, so I would like him to comment on this specific issue. Netflix USA sells a product to Canadian consumers and, unlike its competitors, does not have to collect GST.

Can my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, explain to me why a foreign company is exempt from the tax rules that apply to Canadian businesses? Why are Canadian consumers not paying tax on Netflix subscriptions?

TaxationAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, Netflix Canada created a new film and television production company. This is great news for Canadian creators and producers.

Once again, over the next five years, Netflix will invest a minimum of $500 million Canadian in original productions produced in Canada in English and in French for distribution on Netflix's global platform.

Let us not forget that Netflix already has a strong track record of investing in Canadian producers and content, with recent examples including Anne and Alias Grace with the CBC, Travelers with Showcase, and Frontier with Discovery.

We believe that this significant investment in Canada demonstrates that Netflix is committed to continuing to be a meaningful partner in supporting Canadian creators, producers, and the Canadian creative expression.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 2017, I rose in the House to ask a question about opioid overdoses.

I want to remind members that almost 3,000 people died from opioid overdoses in 2016. Unfortunately, these terrible numbers will continue to rise, as the Public Health Agency of Canada estimates that the number of deaths caused by opioids in 2017 will exceed 4,000.

Those are the statistics. In 2017, a staggering 4,000 Canadians died from an opioid overdose, including an unprecedented 1,400 in British Columbia alone.

However, this is neither an opioid crisis nor an overdose crisis. It is a crisis of social isolation exacerbated by a bad drug policy.

I believe that it is high time the government addressed this serious situation by putting in place an effective response that will resolve this very serious public health crisis.

For several months now experts have been calling on the government to declare a state of emergency and acknowledge the gravity of this crisis. The magnitude of this crisis cannot be ignored. Last year, in the City of Vancouver alone, the number of opioid overdoses increased by 43% compared to 2016. In other words, 335 people died, or roughly one death a day.

In Quebec, the crisis is growing as well. Recently, a 22-year old young man from the Eastern Townships died after ingesting a cocktail of powerful synthetic opioids.

I want to thank all the organizations and frontline workers in our country who have to deal with the major issue that is the opioid crisis. I want to commend the incredible work of the Maison l'Alcôve treatment centre in my riding. Since 1985, that centre has been working with and treating people with alcohol and drug addictions. Maison l'Alcôve is an addiction treatment centre with in-patient accommodation for adults with substance abuse or gambling problems. They do incredible and important work. I sincerely thank them for it.

Front-line workers and partners all tell us that we must work together to get to the root of addiction by offering housing with support services and combatting homelessness by providing access to essential social services.

The mayor of Vancouver recently asked this government to create a national strategy in response to the magnitude of the crisis. Although many steps have already been taken, mainly at the municipal level, to prevent opioid overdoses, there is still a lot of work to be done.

That is why I am calling on the government to implement an ambitious pan-Canadian action plan, as called for by a task force launched by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, representing 13 cities, including Montreal, Calgary, and Toronto.

When will the government heed these cities' calls, or should I say cries, for help? The time has come to do everything we can to contain this crisis before it becomes a national epidemic.

Jagmeet Singh has proposed the only credible solution: treating addiction as a health care problem and not as a criminal justice problem.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Louis-Hébert Québec

Liberal

Joël Lightbound LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for her interest in this issue which is, as she mentioned, a real Canadian public health crisis.

The figures remain chilling, as the number of opioid-related deaths continues to rise. This crisis represents a new type of public health challenge for Canada. Before, urgent public health interventions dealt mainly with infectious disease outbreaks, which have a more defined beginning and end. The opioid overdose situation is complex. We will need time and we will have to work with a number of partners to address this crisis.

The Government of Canada recognizes that there have been calls for the declaration of a national public health emergency. Action has been taken on a national level and in partnership with provinces and territories, all without the need to declare a public welfare emergency under the Emergencies Act. Current federal legislation would not confer any additional powers through such a declaration.

We have responded to the crisis with major new spending and new legislation. We have also fast-tracked new regulations. For example, we have allocated over $100 million in new federal money to the Canadian drugs and substances strategy and provided emergency funding to British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba.

We also passed new legislation to make it harder to bring fentanyl into the country and to streamline the application process for supervised consumption sites. We have approved more than 25 new supervised consumption sites, which are saving lives every day.

Recently, the government announced the implementation of drug-checking services and approved their use in supervised consumption sites. Temporary overdose prevention sites have also been approved for Ontario, the Minister of Health having deemed the province's public health needs urgent.

We are also reducing regulatory barriers to treatment. For instance, Health Canada is allowing the import of medications for urgent public health needs that are not yet authorized in Canada.

We also supported a pilot project for the delivery of safer alternative treatments to replace often fatal illegal drugs. Our government is continuing to work closely with its provincial and territorial partners on this.

For example, Canada's chief public health officer co-chairs the special advisory committee on the epidemic of opioid overdoses, which continues to be a key mechanism for collaboration among the senior public health officials leading crisis response efforts in their respective jurisdictions.

The committee, which has been active since December 2016, has made significant strides toward improving rapid information sharing about opioid-related deaths. The committee is now producing quarterly reports about those deaths, and national data have been released three times so far. The latest figures are slated for release in the spring.

The committee has also played a key role in fostering collaboration between various public safety, public health, and municipal officials within jurisdictions to advance collective efforts.

The federal government has placed public health officers in provinces and territories, upon request, to support jurisdictions in strengthening their data and surveillance systems.

The environment in which we live and work is in constant flux, so the government is continually reviewing and strengthening its ability to prevent, detect, and respond to public health incidents. To that end, the Minister of Health committed to acting rapidly in accordance with her mandate to review Canada's public health emergency management framework together with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

In undertaking this review, the Minister of Health has asked Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to identify any additional measures or powers that would help her address the current crisis and any similar crisis in the future.

However, our work is not done.

From knocking down regulatory hurdles to improving access to treatment for all Canadians and eliminating stigmatization—

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Order. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

NDP

Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, despite what the parliamentary secretary might say, I believe that the government is underestimating the extent of the crisis our country is faced with. For months now, a number of my NDP colleagues and I have tried to alert the government to this very serious public health crisis. As I said, we are not the only ones. Thirteen of Canada's largest cities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities also called on the government to implement a real pan-Canada program to address this crisis, but the government is doing precious little.

In the meantime, thousands of people are dying every year. I am calling on the government to set aside funding in the upcoming 2018 budget to combat this crisis. It is imperative to take action to prevent more of our constituents from dying.

When will the government abandon the failed war on drugs and adopt a health-based approach to addiction and drug use? When will the government finally—

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that opioid-related overdoses continue to claim the lives of thousands of Canadians, devastating families and communities across the country.

For our government, dealing with this crisis is a top priority. To that end, we have used all available tools and mechanisms. To date, we have made new investments, passed new legislation and expedited regulatory measures.

We will continue to address this crisis by working with the provinces and territories to increase access to treatment, by supporting innovative approaches to address the crisis, and by implementing measures to address the stigma related to opioid use.

As long as this crisis continues, I can guarantee that our government will continue to work hard to find solutions together with its provincial partners.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Mr. Speaker, last October, I asked the finance minister about when he had sold his shares in Morneau Shepell. He had about $20 million or $30 million in Morneau Shepell, which he told Canadians he had put in a blind trust. Of course, we found out that was not true, and it kicked off quite a fall for the finance minister.

Here we are, four months later, and the Liberals are once again embroiled in an ethical scandal where the Prime Minister, this time, has been found guilty of breaching the conflict of interest provisions that are provided to ministers and members of Parliament. He has been found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner of improperly arranging his personal affairs, guilty on the charge of accepting illegal gifts, guilty on the charge of illegally accepting a ride on a private aircraft, and guilty on the charge that he engaged illegally in discussions about government business.

We know that the finance minister had similar issues. He was found to have breached the code, as well, for failing to disclose the nature of the foreign corporation that held his French villa.

They certainly kept Mary Dawson, the previous ethics commissioner, quite busy. Her term has expired, and we have a new Ethics Commissioner, and he is now going to be investigating. We anticipate that he will continue the investigation into whether the Minister of Finance was in a conflict of interest when he introduced pension legislation, Bill C-27, that could have directly benefited his former family company, Morneau Shepell, while he was still in control of those shares in that company.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could confirm whether the new Ethics Commissioner has met with the finance minister to discuss that potential conflict of interest with Bill C-27, and whether or not he has answered those questions about whether that directly benefited his personal company.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Louis-Hébert Québec

Liberal

Joël Lightbound LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, that is a throw-back to the last session. I would like to remind my colleague that the first thing the Minister of Finance did when he arrived in Ottawa was to work with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in order to ensure that he was in compliance with the rules governing the House of Commons and Parliament.

The then commissioner recommended that he set up a conflict of interest screen, which she considered to be the best means of compliance possible. That is what the Minister of Finance did upon his arrival in Ottawa.

In recent months, he announced that he would go one step further by divesting himself of all his shares in Morneau Shepell and placing his assets in a blind trust.

I can assure my colleague that the Minister of Finance continues to work with the new Ethics Commissioner and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as he has been doing since he was elected in October 2015, and which he will always do.

If my colleague was following the news when the House was not sitting, he would have seen that the Ethics Commissioner had previously said there was no basis for the allegations and accusations against the Minister of Finance we were hearing too often in the House.

I can only hope that the Conservatives will start to focus on what Canadians care about instead of throwing around wild allegations.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Ethics Commissioner cleared the finance minister of one of the allegations that were made. He also continues to investigate whether or not the finance minister was in a conflict of interest when he tabled legislation, Bill C-27, which would change the way that pensions are administered in this country. Only a very few companies in this country are set up to administer those types of pensions, and one of them happens to be Morneau Shepell, his former family company.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm whether the finance minister has met with the new Ethics Commissioner to discuss those allegations of conflict of interest?

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I said, since he was elected and came to Ottawa, the Minister of Finance has worked closely with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, with all the respect owed to this institution. He will continue to work with the office to ensure that he is in compliance with all the rules that govern us in the House. He will always follow the recommendations made by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as he did in 2015 when the commissioner recommended that he set up a conflict of interest screen.

We would call this the best possible measure of compliance.

In fact, this was a measure that former Conservative ministers implemented.

EthicsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

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

(The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.)