Debates of Feb. 8th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Tax Fairness in Budget 2018

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind members to ensure that their questions and comments are one minute or less, so that other members have the opportunity to ask questions.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish my colleague opposite a happy birthday. That is the only nice thing I will be saying about him today.

He likes to cloak himself in the Liberal government's good intentions. However, he forgets that the Prime Minister was found guilty of four ethics violations. All we are asking is for the Prime Minister to pay back the $200,000. That would help a lot of families put food on the table.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking my Quebec City colleague for her kind wishes. It is a pleasure working with her in the House.

I believe that I just did so, but I will say again that for 10 years, the previous government focused on giving tax breaks to the wealthy. The Canada child benefit was much less generous or progressive.

The fact is that we have made tremendous progress in two years. We put measures in place and brought forward proposals for tax fairness to make our system fairer. Whether it is housing, the Canada child benefit or the working income tax benefit, we are bringing in initiatives to ensure that Canada is a more just society where everyone has an opportunity to reach their full potential. I think that this is something we can be proud of.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will start by wishing my colleague a happy birthday. I think I heard his age, but I am not going to let on what it is. I will leave everyone guessing.

The member mentioned the $1 billion in the budget to help catch tax evaders and people who use the system to their benefit more than they should. I wonder if the member could expound on that for a minute or so.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is true that this government, in the last two budgets, invested more than any other government, close to $1 billion, to give CRA the resources to go after tax avoidance and tax evasion in a more meaningful way to make sure that there is more fairness in our system. That speaks volumes when we compare the actions of this government with those of the previous government. Just this summer, a former Conservative revenue minister, Mr. Blackburn, said quite frankly, and I would say shamelessly, that this was not even on the agenda of the previous government. It was not a priority. It was not on the radar of the previous government to go after tax avoidance and tax evasion.

When we compare its record to the close to $1 billion we have invested to give the resources to CRA to go after those who engage in tax evasion and tax avoidance, it goes to show the ambition of this government to make sure that everyone in this country pays their fair share and that we have a system that is more just so that everyone has a fair shot at success.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course I wish to join everyone in wishing my colleague a happy birthday.

In my constituency office, I get emails, letters and calls. Every time I attend an event, there is sure to be someone who tells me that they are deeply offended about the use of tax havens in Canada. They are offended that last year the Liberal government signed new agreements with other tax havens, such as the Cook Islands, Antigua and Barbuda, and Grenada.

I cannot imagine that my colleague does not also meet constituents in his riding who are offended by these tax havens. Working people fill out their tax returns and pay their taxes, while Canada’s wealthiest pay tax experts to find ways to put their money in tax havens in order to avoid paying tax.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's birthday wishes.

I would like to reassure her that fighting tax evasion and tax avoidance is one of our government's priorities. That is why we have invested close to $1 billion. When my constituents talk to me about this, I point out that, unlike the previous government, we are investing the resources needed to fight these aggressive tax practices.

I also meet a lot of people who talk about what a big difference the Canada child benefit has made in their lives. I hear from St. Vincent de Paul volunteers that fewer people have been using their services since we introduced the benefit, which is more generous and more progressive. People have also asked me why the NDP voted against that measure.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to this motion. I want to congratulate the previous speaker, the parliamentary secretary, I understand it is his birthday. It must be nice to finally be able to have a drink in the province of Ontario. That is good news for him, but perhaps not as good news for his constituents.

We have a motion today brought to us by the NDP which asks the government to follow through on one of its commitments with respect to stock option deductions and tax havens. There may be aspects of the motion that one could sympathize with. Ultimately, we know that the NDP as well as the Liberals are eager to raise taxes at every opportunity. Conservatives are not supportive of the motion, but certainly we are sympathetic with the fact that the NDP thinks that the government should keep its promises.

In principle, the government made many different kinds of promises to people with different kinds of philosophies trying to basically promise everything to everyone. Of course, that is a little harder to do when the party is in government. I am going to talk today about how the government is increasing taxes across the board. I am going to counter some of the arguments made by the parliamentary secretary and I am sure he will enjoy hearing them. Then I am going to talk about the broken promises.

With respect to the issue of taxes, the parliamentary secretary painted a picture for us of the alleged progressivity of the government when it comes to tax policy, allegedly how the Liberals want to help people with lower incomes by lowering their taxes while increasing taxes for the wealthy.

The facts paint a very different picture. Frankly, this narrative created by the government is total malarkey. I should not say malarkey; it is “people-larkey”. It is total nonsense in any event. The Liberals say they are interested in lowering taxes for lower-income Canadians, but let us point out the reality.

Conservatives lowered the lowest marginal tax rate when they were in government. The Liberals have not touched the lowest marginal tax rate. If people are making $45,000 a year or less, they are indisputably paying more tax under the current government. The Liberals only went for the middle rate, not the lowest rate. It was Conservatives who lowered the lowest rate.

The Liberals also reduced the amount of money a person can put toward a tax-free savings account. This is important because tax-free savings accounts are the preferred savings vehicle of relatively lower-income Canadians. Why is that? I talked about it in previous speeches. When Canadians are looking at saving their money, they look at the relative advantages of various savings vehicles that exist. They look at something like an RRSP or a TFSA, and they assess the merits of them. We see clearly from the data that there are certain financial incentives associated for people with modest incomes making greater investments in TFSAs. Again, an advisable investment decision will vary depending on the individual, depending on the situation, but in particular, the government's ideological opposition to TFSAs and its desire to reduce the amount an individual can contribute to it has a disproportionate impact on Canadians who are in that middle- and lower-income level.

Again, in terms of what the Liberals have done with respect to tax rates, as well as what they have done with TFSAs, again it is a tax agenda that is very bad for, to use their verbiage, the middle class and those working hard to join it. Part of the problem is that they still never told us what in their minds it means to be middle class. They say that they are trying to help this group of people and yet they cannot even provide us with a definition of who qualifies as being in the particular group they are trying to address. That may lead to some of this confusion where again they are undertaking tax policies which very clearly do not appear to actually impact those who they claim they are going to impact.

Very often we see with the Liberals that the policies they undertake hurt those they are supposed to help. While the Prime Minister is off taking an illegal vacation, the Liberals are raising taxes on those who will actually have to pay for that illegal vacation through things like security costs.

Of course, who could forget the carbon tax? When it comes to the government's interest in raising taxes, this is of particular concern in my province of Alberta, but it is a concern across the country. The government is trying to force provinces to introduce a new tax. It is threatening them with punitive taxation if they do not follow along with the federal directive, even if it is an area that is clearly within provincial jurisdiction.

One of many problems with the carbon tax is that there are many Canadians who need to use fuel, who need to use energy in some way and simply cannot eliminate these costs. In Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, on a typical day in the winter it is -40°C. It is a great place to visit but it gets cold. People who live there cannot just decide they do not want to heat their home because of the carbon tax. That is not a realistic choice a person could make.

Some might say that the tax burden could be reduced through retrofitting and things like that, but people with a modest income may not have the capacity up front to do that retrofitting. One of the things we did when the Conservatives were in government was we brought in a home renovation tax credit to actually make it easier for people to make those investments in retrofitting. That was not a punitive approach; that was an approach that helped people have the resources to make the kinds of improvements they want.

The Liberal government's approach is always to punish people through taxation to try to get them to behave in what the Liberals imagine to be a socially desirable way. However, the Conservatives' approach was to provide support and tax credits so that people could make those kinds of decisions on things like doing home retrofits.

It could be said that from an environmental perspective, instead of driving, people should aim to take public transit. However, for many families, some with a large number of children, it is not nearly as practical or as easy to go pick up groceries or something like that. Even if they are paying this punitive carbon tax, there are simple realities of family life especially in a cold climate. The carbon tax for many Canadians is not helping them to reduce emissions; it is simply a punitive tax. They now have to pay more money to the government which makes their situation more difficult.

There are many different examples, such as the elimination of tax credits around public transit and other areas, that have simply made life so much more expensive for families. There have been independent assessments of this that show that Canadians at all levels are paying more tax under the government.

My friend the parliamentary secretary referenced this whole issue of the impact of the child benefit. This is another Liberal talking point about Conservatives sending cheques to millionaires. Let us be very clear. The Conservatives had a taxable benefit. Anyone would tell us that relatively speaking, taxable benefits, at least with all things being equal, are more progressive because we have a progressive tax system. Yes, people who have a child will get a child benefit regardless of their income, but it is taxable, and it is taxable on the income of the spouse who earns the lowest income.

The Liberals' approach to this through the tax changes they have made is that they are not going to give cheques to people who are in the very wealthy category, but at the same time, the Liberals are lowering their taxes by lowering the middle marginal rate, providing no benefit to people who are at the bottom. The effects of the change to the middle rate relative to the impact on removing the UCCB for a person at the top end is, at best, a wash.

The Liberal government's arguments around progressivity clearly do not fit. Again, the Liberals are hurting the people they claim they intend to help with their tax policy. When we have motions or proposals for increased taxes, again, generally speaking, we see who pays this.

When the government initially reneged on its promise to lower the small business tax rate, and that is one of the only promises that it unbroke its breaking of, it trumpeted that unbreaking as if it was a brand new commitment. However, when it first broke that promise, the point was made that when taxes are increased on small businesses, it does not just affect the business owners, but it also affects the people who work for that company. It makes it harder for small businesses to expand, to hire new people.

Many Canadians work in the small business sector. The government's targeting of tax increases to these businesses, as well as the regulatory changes that it proposed, some of which it is following through on, very clearly hurts the people the Liberals claim they are trying to help.

By contrast, what was the approach of the previous Conservative government? The government claims now that the previous government was lowering taxes on the wealthy. I defy the Liberals to give us one example of a tax change that was made that particularly affected the wealthy.

What taxes did we increase? We lowered the lowest marginal tax rate, we lowered the GST, we lowered business taxes, and we provided tax credits and we provided a universal child care benefit. Of course, when we lower the lowest marginal rate that provides some reduction to someone who is at the high end because everybody pays that lowest marginal rate. However, lowering the lowest marginal rate disproportionately provides an advantage to those who are of more modest means.

Of course, GST is the one tax that everybody pays and we lowered the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. It is pretty well established that when we lower business taxes that does not just help businesses, that helps union pension funds that invest in business, and that helps workers and helps consumers, but at no point did the Conservatives propose or implement a reduction in the top or even the middle marginal tax rate. We lowered the lowest marginal tax rate, we introduced tax credits, and we lowered the GST.

If the government members think that is not true, I invite them, in questions and comments, to point out the case where we did that. That is either malarkey or “people-larkey”, depending on how progressively one uses the language.

I want to get on to talking about another important issue that is raised by the motion, which is how the government shamelessly breaks all kinds of different promises. Clearly there is far too much on this front to go into all at once. It is interesting that the NDP motion points out that the government voted for a resolution. As it happens, we voted against that resolution at the time. We have been clear and consistent in terms of our position when it comes to increasing taxes, but the government voted for this particular resolution and then it did not actually move forward to implement it. This is again an example of the government wanting to send a signal but to do so in a very disingenuous way.

Certainly, there are parties in the House that take strong convictions on issues and they may be different from each other but often what we see from the Liberal government is simply wanting to send good-feeling signals to all different kinds of sectors without ever actually taking some action.

Since we are talking about taxes and the fiscal area, the first broken promise we should highlight is the fact that the Liberals promised three $10 billion deficits and then a balanced budget in the fourth year. My friend from the NDP talked about the government having attention deficit when it comes to implementing its promises. That is not the only deficit problem the Liberals have but it is one of them.

During the election, we were very clear that we were skeptical as to whether the Liberals would actually follow through with this, yet they opened the door to deficits and said that they were not going to say no to any spending proposals, except to veterans. The Liberals seem to have the attitude that, with the exception of veterans, they will not say no to anybody, and they are spending all sorts of new money. We are way over that $10 billion target and we are way over that target of balancing the budget within three years. The government now has absolutely no plan to get back to a balanced budget, not in the short term, not in the medium term, and not in the long term.

Of course, there are some people who argue that there is logic to deficit spending in certain situations. Certainly in a time of financial crisis there is good logic in running a deficit and then balancing that out with surplus during good times, but is has to be balanced out at some point. When there is a long-term permanent plan to always run deficits, I am not sure of any economic theory that supports the idea that they can just spend more than they take in, in perpetuity.

The Liberals have all kinds of defences and justifications for this. At the end of the day, it is very clear that they have broken a promise. It also needs to be underlined that although Canada has relatively low federal debt to GDP compared with other countries, our total government debt to GDP is comparable to many other countries. Here in the province of Ontario, this is the most indebted sub-sovereign borrower in North America and perhaps on the planet. We have provincial governments that deliver a lot of services compared with what sub-national jurisdictions deliver in other countries around the world and in some cases they are taking on a great deal of debt.

Since the election of the NDP in my province, we have had the introduction of new taxes, such as a carbon tax, but we also went from a time where Alberta had paid off all of its debt to a situation where we are again dealing with big problems with respect to deficit and debt. It is unfortunate when this happens because it is governments forcing the next generation to pay for the services and the spending of the present, plus the extra costs associated with it.

The current government went to Canadians with a proposal for a deficit of $10 billion over three years and then a balanced budget. Canadians do not have an opportunity to pronounce on individual promises; rather, they take platforms and programs as a whole. However, about 39% of them voted for a government that said it would run a $10 billion deficit. The government has completely broken that promise and I think many Canadians are concerned about it.

Speaking of the percentage of Canadians who voted for the current government, another promise that it made during the election that it has now reneged on was with respect to changing the electoral system. We have had a great deal of debate in the House about that issue. However, the way in which the government broke its promise was quite disingenuous. There was a committee process that heard from Canadians, that did a lot of good work and put a lot of time in. In the end, most of the parties represented in that committee agreed to a basic framework. They did not necessarily agree on the desired outcome, but they did agree to a basic framework, which was that there should be a referendum of all Canadians that would give them a choice between the status quo and a system that had some greater degree of proportionality. That was what came out of that committee report.

However, the government did not like that because through this electoral reform discussion it was quite clear that it wanted to move to a system that was actually less proportional and that was uniquely advantageous to the government. Therefore, immediately after this, it undertook this new and ridiculous other form of consultation, which did not actually ask people for their opinions but asked the sort of touchy-feely questions that were notionally related to electoral reform. My colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston said it best. He said that this was, “like being on a dating website designed by Fidel Castro.” It asked all kinds of emotive questions without actually asking for opinions, and regardless of what one put in, it always came to the same conclusions. This very compromised process was the government's justification for tearing up its commitment with respect to this electoral change entirely.

I have written a whole list on this sheet of paper of broken promises to talk about. I have only talked about two of them, and I do not know how much time exactly I have left. Let us see how many more I can get through.

The government had promised to show greater respect for Parliament. What have we seen by contrast? We have before us today a motion that is the re-asking of a motion that already passed in the House. It was a motion that, as it happens, the Conservatives voted against. However, it did pass in the House and the government members voted in favour of it. Now it is coming forward again. Why? Because there has not been action on something that the government said it was for. If it was not going to do it, it should have at least been willing to be up front with Canadians in terms of how the Liberals voted.

Formally, these motions that we pass are not binding on the government. However, we would expect the government, especially when it votes for something, to think about whether or not it is going to do it when it evaluates how it is going to vote with respect to a particular measure.

A particularly frustrating thing in terms of respect for Parliament is that we have a convention in this place where when party leaders ask questions of the Prime Minister, if he is present, he answers those questions. Well, it is not that he answers the questions, but he at least stands up after the question is asked and responds to the question. One could debate whether the previous prime minister answered the questions. I think he answered the questions very well, but he always responded to the questions. The member for Winnipeg North knows that whenever the previous prime minister was here, when he was asked a question by the then leader of the opposition, he stood up and responded to the question that was asked.

However, we now have a situation where the current Prime Minister, even when he is present, and I will not comment on how often that happens because it would be unparliamentary to specifically refer to the presence or absence of the Prime Minister in the House, very often does not answer the question, even when specifically asked questions by the opposition.

I could go on, but I know I am running out of time. There are so many instances where the government has failed to keep its promises. This is yet another example. Certainly, Canadians are frustrated by it, which is why they are going to throw the current government out in 2019.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for that stream of consciousness word cloud we just heard. I was really trying to follow the stream of consciousness around today's debate that we are having around the NDP motion, which includes offshore tax havens.

Our government has spent almost $1 billion over the last two years in prosecuting offshore tax havens. We are seized with the job of closing down offshore tax havens. However, I did not hear anything about that part of the motion. I wonder whether the hon. member has an opinion on offshore tax havens, which is today's debate.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will say that the member for Guelph is a somewhat selective watchdog when it comes to topicality, because I felt the need to respond to the myriad comments that were made by the parliamentary secretary, which included all manner of different subjects. I thought it important that those had a response. Hopefully, next time the parliamentary secretary speaks, the member for Guelph will be ready to highlight how he has take us, in terms of the direction, off the topic. I think it is important, with respect to this motion, because it speaks to broken promises by the government as well as the general fiscal policy, but it is also important to address comments that are made by government members, especially when they are not exactly fully aligned with the reality.

With respect to the issues in the motion, I have been clear that our Conservative Party will be voting against it. We voted against the original motion on March 8, in particular, because of concerns we have about the open-ended language it uses with respect to stock options. Stock options can be a very important vehicle for start-ups and entrepreneurs, and it is on that basis that we are concerned about this.

Of course, any time there is tax evasion happening, it is something that the government should take very seriously and should respond to in an effective way.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed the Conservatives are voting against this, because of both the principle and purpose of this motion. The principle is to hold the government members to the promise they made when they voted for it the first time, and in the two elections that they campaigned on this issue.

The issue itself is that any government has to decide whether this is a good expenditure or not, and if it is a good loss of tax revenue or not. What we have noted, and my friend has probably heard this through the debate, is that the vast majority of the stock option loopholes, if we take a look just at that, climb to the top 10% of Canadian income earners. Overwhelmingly, 92% of all the benefits of this tax loophole go to the top 10%. Now, Conservatives may decide in their fight for the average person on Main Street, the small businesses they talk about all the time, that somehow this benefits them, but it does not.

We have simply said to the government that to forego $750 million in revenue every year and receive no discernible benefit to the Canadian economy, no job creation, no innovation, no discernible benefit to help the economy be on its feet in a stronger way, only exacerbates the problem. We know that in the last number of years the overwhelming benefit of a growing economy has gone to the overwhelmingly rich, and that is a problem. It is a problem for society and for our economy.

Therefore, at least on the principle of holding Liberals to account, will Conservatives reconsider their position because making the government simply follow through on a promise is a really good thing for Parliament to engage in once in a while?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, we believe that in principle governments should follow through on their promises, but we are not going to vote to endorse a promise that we think is problematic. Although we believe in the principle that the government should keep its commitments, if there is an aspect on a policy level that we have been consistent in saying we have concerns with, we are not going to suddenly change our position simply to align with something that happened to be a commitment that the government made.

The member suggested that benefits of economic growth have generally accrued to only the wealthy. I would ask the member to look at the information at least in a Canadian context, because I think sometimes we import data from other jurisdictions when we are coming to these conclusions about trends in terms of equality. I think one of the best measures of relative equality is something called “intergenerational earning elasticity”, which is the relative likelihood that a person who came from a wealthy family will themselves be wealthy, or that a person who came from a lower-income family will themselves be wealthy.

Canada has done better over the last 10 years than almost any other jurisdiction in the world when it comes to this real-time measure of economic opportunity. As well, real wages for middle-income Canadians went up substantially under the tenure of the Harper government. I think that is fairly clearly established in the data.

I do want to comment on the stock option issue but I think I am out of time, so maybe I will do that in response to the next question.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really encourage the member opposite to perhaps try to get some of his material from outlets other than the Fraser Institute and Rebel Media. Maybe he could look at the PBO's report, for example, which clearly states that nine out of 10 families are in a better position now than they were under the previous government.

He specifically asked for an example of where money had been taken from people who perhaps did not need it and given to those who did. I will give an example; I am an example. I used to get the universal child benefit. My family does not get anything under the new program because it is being diverted specifically to those who need it. That is the right thing to do. That is what a progressive government does.

Could the member comment on why he does not see it is a good thing that somebody, and I use myself as an example, does not get that money anymore because it goes to those who actually need it?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have never heard of this Rebel Media he speaks of, so maybe he needs to share a little with me about it. Maybe it is something he watches. I do not know. I do not always have time to follow media, given the work schedule I keep.

With respect to his comments about no longer receiving the universal child care benefit, I happen to know his salary, because it is the same as mine. Members of Parliament benefit significantly from the changes the government made. While they may not be eligible for the UCB anymore, they benefit a great deal because of the way in which the tax changes have been made.

The new higher tax rate only kicks in when a person earns over $200,000. There is no tax reduction for people making $45,000 a year or less. Those who benefit the most are those who are between the top of that middle rate and the bottom of the new rate. Those tend to be people who have relatively higher incomes than those who are in that category of really struggling.

Members of Parliament benefit significantly more from the tax changes the government has made. It is a little selective for him to isolate one aspect of those changes without talking about them in broader context.

If I have time, I want to respond to my friend from the NDP.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for one more question, and maybe the member could slide his response into that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, hearing that from the Conservatives makes this such an interesting debate. After the corporate tax rate was lowered to the lowest in the G7 by the Conservatives, when in government, it turns out that rather than leading to a boost in investment, it ended up with Canadian corporations stashing away $200 billion in offshore tax havens. That was not a benefit to Canada.

Then to our great disappointment, the CRA staff was slashed significantly. Instead, those people could have been acting to stop tax evasion and identifying tax cheats, but that did not happen. Instead, jobs were cut, which is partly why we are in this situation.

I am curious how the Conservatives feel their credibility stands up in this debate right now when they did not crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I can pretty well weave my response to that into the other response I was going to give. Sometimes there is a category error with respect to the NDP, where they do not distinguish business tax reductions and tax reductions that high-income earners pay. Income tax rates that high-income earners pay obviously directly benefit those high-income earners. However, when business tax rates are lowered, that does not just benefit high-income earners, but it is more likely to benefit consumers, employees of those companies, and so forth.

When we were in government, yes, we lowered business taxes. We lowered business taxes as well as the small business tax rate. We are very proud of that. The evidence shows that as we see reductions in business tax rates over time, we see an increase in business tax revenue. The lower the business tax rate, notwithstanding all the other economic benefits in economic activity, the higher the rate of earnings from business taxes directly. When we were in government, and this is the clear distinction, we lowered tax rates but we did not lower income tax rates for high-income earners.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

It has almost been a year since Parliament passed a motion asking the government to keep its promise to Canadians. That promise was to cap the stock option deduction loophole used by wealthy Canadians to not pay their fair share of taxes, and to take aggressive action to combat tax havens where corporations and wealthy Canadians put their money as a way to not pay taxes here in Canada. The government has yet to do either. This is a huge disappointment to people in my community.

It is almost time for another budget and the government has an opportunity to finally tackle the tax havens that siphon off billions of dollars of government revenue. It can also finally close the stock option deduction loophole that allows the wealthiest Canadians to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

The Canada child benefit was supposed to lift nine million children out of poverty. Sadly, the very same kids the government claims to be helping are not even receiving the benefit. I know that because I have asked that department directly. It cannot tell me, it cannot tell us, and it cannot tell Canadians if all of the eligible families are actually receiving the benefit.

In my riding, countless stories of single mothers are being asked to go to ridiculous lengths just to submit a claim, and of those already receiving it, it is being suspended for no good reason.

Families in my riding have lost their homes because of not receiving the Canada child benefit for which they were eligible and who only finally received it because of the help from my office. I even had members of a family agree to go on national TV to talk about their horror story with the CRA. The day after that they appeared on TV, Canada Revenue Agency called them, something they had a hard time receiving before, to say that they would be receiving their Canada child benefit.

My office helped one young single parent receive her Canada child benefit. She had provided the CRA with 75 pages of documentation to prove her eligibility and she was still denied the benefit. Obviously, this is beyond unacceptable. What many parents are forced to go through to prove their eligibility is cruel. There is something seriously wrong here.

This is a tragic illustration of the growing inequality in our country. Families struggling to make ends meet are being made to prove and prove again their eligibility, yet millionaires who wilfully defraud the government are given a free pass.

Why is there such a double standard in the way the Canada Revenue Agency treats Canadians? We have sweetheart deals for rich Canadians who have been caught not paying their taxes and penalties for the rest of us.

There are not many millionaires in my community of Saskatoon who have a need for tax havens and not many people who own stock options to use them to pay less tax. However, a lot of people in my riding cannot get service at a counter of Canada Revenue Agency anymore because it has been closed. They also had a lot of trouble simply getting a form at tax time last year.

I wrote to the minister about these problems last year. I am glad to see that some improvements have been announced for this coming tax year. However, the best news would be if the government would announce its intention to make our tax system fairer for everyone.

The vast majority of Canadians would like their government to plug the stock option loophole and track down the lost billions of dollars that have been socked away on Caribbean islands.

Here are a couple of examples of the stark income and wealth inequality in Canada that our tax system is perpetuating. Just two Canadian billionaires own the same amount of wealth as nearly 12 million Canadians. That is one-third of the population of Canada, which is unbelievable. These two Canadian billionaires have $33.1 billion, and that is U.S. dollars. By lunch time on January 1, Canada's richest CEOs earned the same amount as the average Canadian earned in an entire year.

A recent study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives shows that 59 tax measures that mostly benefit people above the average income level in Canada costs the government more than $100 billion in one year.

In most of Canada, profit from stock options is considered a capital gain and therefore it is taxed at half the rate of regular employment income, the kind of income most of us earn and claim on our income tax. Also, although it had different purposes at the beginning, this tool is primarily used, and we have heard the stats, by Canada's ultra rich as a way to simply pay less taxes. Stock options now make up almost 25% of CEO compensation at Canada's top 60 publicly-traded companies. This costs federal and provincial governments close to $1 billion each year.

I would like to note that Quebec applies the standard provincial income tax rate to profit from stock options. For that, bravo, and I ask the federal government to follow that lead.

The use of offshore tax havens by Canadian companies and wealthy Canadians is at its highest in history. It costs Canadians between $5 billion and $8 billion each and every year.

A year ago, the NDP asked the finance minister to not only address the imbalance that existed in how CRA treated the top 1% and the rest of us, but also to take concrete and immediate action to recoup the billions of dollars lost to tax fraud and tax havens, dollars that could be funding health care, education, and infrastructure. They could be used to fund more affordable housing, a national free prescription drug program, affordable child care, and a fair living wage.

Imagine if everyone paid their fair share, instead of just some of us. However, because the government refuses to collect billions of dollars lost every year, we cannot do the things we need to do.

Yesterday, I met with Colton, Chance, and Charlotte, three brilliant students who were representing the Canadian Federation of Students. They came to talk to me about how the government could really help students pursue their dreams of post-secondary education, to realize their potential, and to pursue their careers. I want to thank them for bringing to my attention what would be possible for a government that really wanted to help students. Lo and behold, they proposed eliminating the stock option loophole as a way for the government to have the needed revenue to help students.

Here is an example they shared with me.

Because of the decrease in government funding over the last 10 years, 10,000 indigenous students are currently waiting to exercise their treaty right to post-secondary education. The government promised, while trying to get elected, that $50 million annually would be added to current funding to address this backlog of students trying to get an education. By simply eliminating the stock option deduction loophole, the government could fund its promise to students. It could help these students with this one measure for the next 15 years.

Before Christmas, I had the honour of meeting women in the trade journey program at the YWCA. These are mostly young women with children, exploring careers in the trades. We had a great discussion. We talked about what would really make a difference for them, for women in these traditionally male-dominated professions. They said affordable, accessible child care was key for them to pursue their post-secondary education to realize their dreams of becoming journey persons. They did not understand why their government did not seem to understand why child care was so important to their success as parents and as journey persons.

We have a national housing strategy that cannot end homelessness, not even in 10 years. Just half of those who are homeless will be helped. The other 50% are literally going to be left out in the cold. Just a fraction of the billions of lost revenue would make a huge and immediate difference, and we could actually make homelessness history.

It is a simple equation. By ensuring all Canadians pay their fair share, by not giving wealthy Canadians a free pass, by ending the stock option deduction loophole, by simply collecting taxes owed, the government has an opportunity to match its words with actions. I look forward, ever hopeful, that the 2018 budget will be a budget for all Canadians and not just a few.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member referenced the 2018 budget and talked about other initiatives. The member who introduced the motion said that it is all about fairness. He used pharmacare as one example. Listeners should be aware that the government has acted. The member referenced housing. That was the second example he gave. We have invested billions of dollars in the housing strategy, the biggest housing strategy brought forward to this House in probably the history of our country.

Members in the Liberal caucus have been advocating for months the importance of developing some sort of pharmacare program. In fact, the health committee is investigating that particular issue, with the idea of coming up with a report, led by Liberal members of Parliament. The government is moving forward in many progressive areas.

The question I have for my colleague is related to the close to $1 billion being invested by the Minister of National Revenue to recoup literally hundreds of millions, going into the billions, of dollars from individuals who are not paying taxes. What are her thoughts on that?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my fellow prairie colleague for eventually getting to his question.

We have heard the government talk a lot about things. It talks about child care and making provincial arrangements, which have not had any impact on people's lives yet. It talks about a national drug prescription program. I presented an opportunity to stop talking about those things and to actually act on them.

I also talked about a program, which Liberals trumpet all across Canada, to help children. I gave you an opportunity to find a way to do that better. That is something you need to follow through on.

My comment about housing is that much of that money is for beyond the mandate of the government. It is spread out over 10 years. There is very little investment at the beginning. Its goal to reduce homelessness could be way better, and the government should really step up.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member for Saskatoon West to address her questions to the Chair. If members would not use the word “you”, it would make things a lot easier.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I get the impression that somehow the member has no fence with individuals who design things, create jobs, develop products, bring them to market, actually achieve a measure of success, and become wealthy. We need to understand that the wealthy in our country pay over 50% in tax, when the provincial and federal portions of their taxes are combined.

I am wondering why I get the sense that there is no appreciation for the people who create jobs, create products, design products, and boost our economy.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will first state that I have a lot of respect for entrepreneurs, people who build things and develop products. It is something I do not have the skills to do, and I have a lot of respect for that.

What I was talking about in my speech was fairness, not giving one group a reduction or a lower tax rate than the other group. I was saying that the government could step up and actually follow through on the promises it made to Canadians during the campaign. If it followed through on its promises to do the things it was asked to do a year ago, it would actually have the funds, without raising taxes, to do the things it said, such as child care and housing.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House often, but this is the second time in a little less than a year that I rise to speak on behalf of the people of Trois-Rivières that I represent, the vast majority of whom are working very hard to make ends meet. Every year, these taxpayers pay their taxes as they should, as they will again very soon, and this helps fund essential public services to promote social justice and build a more inclusive Canada.

Tax fairness is at the heart of the NDP's political action. I would even say that under the leadership of Jagmeet Singh, we are the champions of social justice and tax fairness. That is why we are shining the spotlight on the problem of tax evasion and proposing tangible solutions to try once more to put an end to it.

On March 8, 2018, the House adopted a motion calling on the government to do something about the tax giveaways to the wealthy and keep its promise to cap the stock option loophole. That is just another broken election promise.

I think there are three kinds of people who make promises or three possible outcomes. This first category is people who say “yes” and take action right away. People are remembered for that, because their word means something. Then there are the kind of people who say “yes”, but they drag their feet and need constant reminders, and we have no guarantee that their word will actually result in any action. Finally, there are the lost causes, those who say “yes” to look good, and perhaps they agree with the principle, but are completely incapable of taking action.

Frankly, I reluctantly put the Liberal government somewhere between the second and third category, that is, between those who drag their feet and the lost causes. I will give it a few more weeks to see whether the Liberals actually put their money where their mouth is in budget 2018. If it becomes clear that that is not the case, the only logical conclusion is that the Liberals are all talk and no action.

If Canadians really want a government that listens to workers across the country, regardless of their income, perhaps they should listen to the NDP's proposals the next time. I almost said “a middle-class government”, but I will refrain from using that term because it is hard to define. I will do everything in my power to make sure that these proposals are clear and well defined.

A few months ago, I gave a speech that called on my fellow MPs to support this motion. We were victorious, but only in the sense that the motion was adopted. When it came to taking action, the government did the opposite of what was called for in the motion. The government told us that it would close the loopholes and make sure that everyone pays their share of taxes in the interest of fairness, but the next day, it continued to sign new agreements with tax havens. I would be hard pressed to find a better example of talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

I am therefore rather dismayed to be rising in the House again today to speak in favour of social justice. I hope that this time I will be heard. I almost fear a second victory in the House if it means, again, that nothing will be done.

On this opposition day, I ask my colleagues to support our new motion, which calls upon the government to keep its promise to cap the stock option deduction loophole and to take aggressive action to combat tax havens.

We hope that budget 2018 will include pragmatic measures to deal with tax fraud, particularly with regard to capping the stock option deduction loophole. We are losing $800 million to $1 billion a year.

I wonder if my colleagues can imagine what we could do with $1 billion a year. I certainly can. I have so many ideas, in fact, that $1 billion just might not be enough. It is truly outrageous to be forgoing this revenue.

Why are stock options a crucial issue? For those who might not be familiar with this strategy, under this system, a CEO can buy shares in a company that he is running and then sell those shares at the right time, when he can turn a profit. The benefit he gets from that is considered a capital gain. He will then be taxed at half the rate of ordinary income. When tax season comes around, they usually have only one form, a T4, that states they have one job, one income, and they pay their fair share of income tax. The federal government encourages big businesses to apply this strategy, because CEOs that do pay 50% less tax on gains from the sale of their shares.

Because of this tax loophole, the federal government and the provinces lose $1 billion every year. Instead of giving to wealthy CEOs, the Liberal government should work now, by adding a simple line in the 2018 budget, to ensure that the interests of all taxpayers of this country are respected. For instance, this $1 billion could fund research that would finally, once and for all, establish a standard on pyrrhotite in concrete and allow thousands of local families to get out of the hellish situation they have been in for years. It could quickly fund an overdue announcement by the Liberal government to publicly fund VIA Rail’s high-frequency rail project that would connect Quebec City and Windsor, with a stop in Trois-Rivières. It could also be used to increase health and education transfers.

Speaking of salaries, the riding I have the honour to represent has an unusual characteristic. We have a large number of seniors. My riding's rate is three to four points higher than the average in other regions in Quebec. I have never had a single senior come to tell me that he or she is drowning in money. It is just the opposite. I often hear about seniors having trouble accessing the guaranteed income supplement. These people are living a modest lifestyle, barely above the poverty line, on their meagre pension income, even though they spent years working to develop our society.

In my region, as in others, people are struggling to live decently, and meanwhile, the wealthy are earning even more money. There is a real injustice here that we need to address. I am not saying that everyone should have the same income. We are not communists. We are saying that all Canadians should pay their fair share according to their income. This makes sense. The Liberals talk about their tax cuts and the TFSA contribution limit, and meanwhile, some people in my riding have never even heard of a TFSA or RRSP. When they file their tax returns, they generally do not have enough money to invest in savings that would give them a little more monthly income in retirement. They are light years away from this reality.

When the Liberals brought in their tax cuts, they forgot all about the first tax brackets that are financing the government's deficit. We know that the tax increase on the wealthy is not enough to finance the Liberal government's offer. Studies show that the wealth gap continues to grow year after year. Anyone can see it.

It is time for this government to put its words into action and to follow through on its commitments. When the time comes to vote, it should vote “no” if it opposes the NDP's motion, or vote “yes” and take action.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague from the Trois-Rivières area. He spoke about social justice and I find that interesting.

When we came to power, we implemented three measures. First, we cut taxes for the middle class. Then, we raised taxes for the wealthiest 1%. Finally we invested $1 billion in tax collection and combatting tax evasion.

I would like to know why your party, the NDP, voted against these measures.