House of Commons Hansard #28 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was businesses.

Topics

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the House offer its condolences to the family and friends of Émilie Sansfaçon, emphasize its commitment to helping people who are sick deal with the Employment Insurance program, remind the government of the following motion, adopted on February 19, 2020, “That the House call on the government to increase the special Employment Insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks in the upcoming budget in order to support people with serious illnesses, such as cancer”, and urge the government to comply with this motion as soon as possible.

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will ask only those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement.

Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

There being no opposition, the House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voices, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River on a point of order.

Whole FoodsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today, and I must say, I am absolutely disheartened and angry that I must do so. I am sure, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That the House condemn Whole Foods and its owner Jeff Bezos for banning its employees from wearing poppies on their uniform and demand that the policy be reversed immediately.

Lest we forget.

Whole FoodsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, I will ask only for those who are opposed to the hon. member proposing this unanimous consent motion. Accordingly, all those opposed to her proposing this motion, please say nay. I hear none.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion being adopted, please say nay. There being no dissenting voices, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion.

I move:

That the House of Commons call on all Canadian employers to allow their employees to wear poppies during Veterans Week, showing support for the service and sacrifice of all Canadian veterans and veterans organizations such as the Royal Canadian Legion, which do vital work supporting Canadian veterans from coast to coast to coast.

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton

Again, are there any members opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary proposing this motion? Is there any opposition? I hear none.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Are there any members opposed to the motion being adopted?

There being no dissenting voices, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Whole FoodsOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations, and if you seek it, I am confident you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that it invite John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc., to appear before it, Friday, November 20, 2020, to explain his company's policy, which inexplicably prohibits its employees from wearing the poppy to honour Canada's veterans.

Whole FoodsOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton

Are there any members opposed to the hon. member proposing this motion? I hear none.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Are there any members opposed to the motion being adopted?

There being no dissenting voices, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition today. It is number 10625384.

Petitioners note that leaky buildings, inefficiently insulated and out of date in their energy efficiency measures, contribute as much as one-third of Canada's greenhouse gases. Petitioners note that the national building code is updated and revised only every five years or so, but major gains in meeting our climate targets could be made by updating the building code.

Petitioners call on the government to work with the provinces and territories to develop a new national building code and shoot for an overall energy demand of 15%.

Public HealthPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

November 6th, 2020 / 12:10 p.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to present this petition initiated by constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

We have seen the devastating toll the COVID-19 pandemic has had on seniors in long-term care homes, and petitioners highlight that there were problems in these homes long before the pandemic.

Petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to include long-term care in the public health system by creating national standards for care and staffing levels under the Canada Health Act to ensure accountability; to eliminate profit-making by government-funded long-term care facilities, ensuring funds are spent as allocated and banning subcontracting; to standardize equitable living wages and benefits, and implement single-site employment for all staff; to strengthen government oversight, and initiate strong penalties and clawbacks for facilities not complying with the regulations; and to require independent family counsels with protected rights.

FirearmsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be presenting three petitions in the House today.

The first is my first-ever e-petition. It deals with the issue of firearms. It was started by a resident of my riding who, like many other people across the country, is concerned the government is failing to properly understand and discuss the issues around firearms. It has moved forward with a ban on firearms that are virtually always used legally and properly by individuals instead of focusing on illegal firearms.

This petitioner, as well as many others in my riding, would like the government to act democratically to engage in debate to ensure these things happen in Parliament as opposed to by order in council, and also that they focus on illegal guns, which are really the source of the problem when it comes to gun crime.

Human RightsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to the human rights situations of Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in China. Petitioners are highlighting some horrific revelations related to that situation: arbitrary detention, separation of children from families, invasive surveillance, destruction of cultural sites, forced labour, forced organ harvesting, mass detentions and so forth.

Petitioners are calling for the use of Magnitsky sanctions in response to these events, targeting officials who are involved.

Human Organ TraffickingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill currently before the Senate that would make it a criminal offence for someone to go abroad and receive an organ that had been harvested from somebody against their will. It seeks to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking, which is a concern in China but also in other countries around the world.

I commend these petitions to the consideration of the House.

Human RightsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House to present a petition from signatories all across Canada: people who are concerned about reports that are continuing to come out of communist China regarding the Uighurs and the forced sterilization and other atrocities that are happening to these people.

The signatories want the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian government to be more vocal on this issue. They are calling on the House of Commons to do a couple of things. The first is to formally recognize that Uighurs in China have been, and are being, subjected to genocide. Second, they call on use of the Magnitsky act for sanctions against those who are responsible for these heinous crimes.

Human RightsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition regarding the ongoing human rights abuses in China toward the Uighur Muslim population. The petitioners are calling on the government to formally recognize that Uighurs in China have been, and are being, subjected to genocide, and to use the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials act, the Magnitsky act, and sanction those who are responsible for these heinous crimes.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton

Are there any opposed?

Seeing and hearing none, it is so ordered.

Before we go to government orders, I will go to the hon. member for Calgary Centre, on a matter that is currently before the House.

Bill C-214—Ways and Means MotionPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to a point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on November 3, regarding his concerns respecting Bill C-214, a private member's bill that I have sponsored, entitled “An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (qualifying environmental trust)”.

My colleague on the government side of the House believes that this bill would need to be preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion. As he notes and as is clear in both Bill C-214 and in the Income Tax Act, a qualifying environmental trust is a special kind of trust that is recognized under the Income Tax Act for setting aside reclamation costs for mining sites, waste disposal and quarry sites, as well as pipelines.

The purpose of Bill C-214 is to amend the Income Tax Act to include in the definition “qualifying environmental trust” trusts that are maintained for the sole purpose of funding the reclamation of an oil or gas well operated for the purpose of producing petroleum or natural gas.

Bill C-214 proposes to repeal paragraph (a) of the definition “excluded trust” in subsection 211.6(1) of the Income Tax Act, which currently provides that oil and gas wells are excluded from the definition of a “qualifying environmental trust”, an unjustified inequity that the bill is meant to address, and proposes to add paragraph (e) to the definition of “qualifying site” in the same provision. The proposed paragraph (e) would read as follows: “the operation of an oil or gas well drilled for the purpose of producing petroleum or natural gas.”

The consequence of these proposed amendments would be that the reference to a qualifying site in paragraph (b) of the definition of a “qualifying environmental trust” would include the operation of an oil or gas well drilled for the purpose of producing petroleum or natural gas. Subsection 211.6(2) of the Income Tax Act is the charging provision that imposes tax on qualifying environmental trusts.

My colleague on the government side of the House states that adding a new paragraph (e) to the definition of a “qualifying site” in subsection 211.6(1) of the Income Tax Act would have the effect of expanding the definition of a “qualifying environmental trust” to include trusts that are maintained for the sole purpose of funding the reclamation of an oil or gas well operated for producing petroleum or natural gas. Perhaps that is so, or perhaps not. It depends on the trustee's approach. However, excluding language currently in the act that prejudices one sector of our nation's economy vis-à-vis others is a necessary step in addressing a historical economic inequity.

My colleague goes further to state, “Therefore, the effect of Bill C-214 would be to cause a tax to be payable by a new class of taxpayers, that is, qualifying environmental trusts in respect of the operation of an oil or gas well.” This reach of a conclusion ignores the very nature of how qualifying environmental trusts are taxed, but also by segregating qualifying environmental trusts established for the designed purpose as being a new class of taxpayer somehow distinct from the qualifying environmental trust already extant and effectively providing funding for reclamation and remediation services in Canada's other extractive industries.

In trying to justify the necessity of a ways and means motion, my colleague on the government side of the House erroneously states that Bill C-214 would represent an increase in the incidence of tax for these trusts. Maybe, but only as a result of the increased economic activity associated with the efficiency of using a trust structure to deal with environmental remediation activities. Incidental economic activity and the taxation revenue associated thereby is not subject to the necessity of a ways and means motion.

Finally, my colleague insists that Bill C-214 would represent an extension of a tax to a new class of taxpayer, which seems to indicate a prejudice that oil and gas remediation activities represent a different class in the structure of environmental trust, a mode of thinking that is, thankfully, archaic in most of society. Canadians do not segregate themselves by class according to industry sectors, neither does our tax system and neither should the House acquiesce to this regressive rationale.

In support of his argument, my colleague reached for a precedent Speaker's ruling from 2011. I would ask the Speaker to examine how weakly that precedent represents the characteristics of the amendments sought in Bill C-214. I submit a more appropriate comparative would arise from a Speaker's ruling on February 1, 2008, on then Bill C-219, where it was deemed the amendments presented did not result in an increased tax burden on taxpayers.

I have addressed these matters at length through the private member's bill process. I have previously addressed your clerks, Mr. Speaker, on this matter. I have addressed the concerns raised by the legislation-drafting branch at the Library of Parliament. I have worked on the financial modelling with the Parliamentary Budget Officer to show the financial benefit of constructive legislation. In addition, the resultant environmental benefit is a key outcome.

At a time when the current government has intervened with a one-time expenditure of $1.7 billion to address the historical problem created by excluding oil and gas remediation from being classed as a qualifying environmental trust, why is the government attempting to stretch definitions in order to disallow a measure that would bring some overdue equity to the treatment of Canada's oil and gas industry?

Bill C-214—Ways and Means MotionPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton

I thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre for his additional comments on the matter. We will take them under advisement and get back to the House, as necessary.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy), as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motion.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni.

There are some things we agree on but others we do not.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-9. We think that the criteria for the Canada emergency wage subsidy should have been changed well before this in order to ensure greater stability.

With regard to the commercial rent assistance program, we already knew in May that it would not work. At the time, I called upon the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to make changes to that program, but it was easier for the government to shut down Parliament and prorogue than to change a program that we knew was ineffective from the start. Access to commercial rent assistance was on a voluntary basis.

My colleague from Courtenay—Alberni and I do not agree when it comes to political parties being able to receive the wage subsidy. We are trying to understand how on earth it is fair that political party employees are protected from being laid off when employees of other businesses that are suffering greatly are not. These businesses are on the verge of collapse too, and it is very difficult for them.

It is outrageous that the Conservative Party, which raised $13 million from its supporters in three quarters, collected close to $1 million from the emergency wage subsidy. The Liberals also took in $1.2 million in public funds from the emergency wage subsidy, and they raised $8.6 million from their supporters.

The NDP cashed in on the emergency wage subsidy starting in May. In June, we learned that the NDP would be getting about $60,000 per month. Yesterday, November 5, reporters asked the NDP how much money it would be getting. They did not get an answer.

My question is simple. Does my colleague support the Bloc Québécois's amendment to make the emergency wage subsidy off-limits for political parties?

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, we are all in this together, and I agree with my colleague that the delay in the rollout was absolutely horrible. So many people were let go from their jobs, whether they were working at a non-profit or charitable organization, a small business or even a political organization.

What we all set out to do was to make sure that we did not discriminate against anyone, wherever they worked. It was for all workers and their families. Including in projects that the NDP has raised concerns about, we decided that we were supporting all workers and their families to make sure that they had job security and also that they were not disconnected from their benefits. People were absolutely scared and they have been scared throughout this whole pandemic.

We would be absolute hypocrites to abandon staff, regardless of whether they work for the NDP or for a local charity or whatever. We cannot pick and choose. We have to support workers. Those are the values of our political party. We will support all workers to ensure that they get the support they need throughout this pandemic.

That is why we have been consistent in not being vocal and speaking out against anyone getting support. Everybody should get treated equally throughout this pandemic and very difficult time.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, today, we are talking about how to support Canadians through the pandemic. As Remembrance Day approaches it is important to be thinking of our veterans.

I was shocked and outraged this morning to read that Whole Foods, a grocery chain owned by Amazon, was telling its employees they could not wear a poppy. I was particularly outraged by the lame excuse it offered that it was not in keeping with its uniform policy and seen to be supporting a cause. I think today in the House we saw all parties agree unanimously to motions calling Whole Foods onto the carpet for this ridiculous policy, because showing respect for the fallen and remembering the horrors of war is not a particular cause. That all-party support was good to see today on the floor of the House of Commons. I am wondering if my colleague would like to comment on that.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that important question, which is relevant to today's debate.

The whole reason we have democratic institutions, this opportunity to talk about helping Canadians and the freedoms we enjoy is because of the sacrifices made by Canada's military and RCMP veterans and their families. For Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon and Whole Foods, to direct his employees and prohibit them from honouring our veterans, which is sacred to Canadians and important to our value system, is absolutely appalling and shameful.

I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the Minister of Industry calls Jeff Bezos and asks him to apologize to his employees, all Canadians and especially to all military and RCMP veterans and their families, because that is what he needs to do immediately. No one should be prohibited from standing up and honouring the very people who have put their lives on the line and made sacrifices for our democracy and freedoms.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am joining members virtually from the traditional unceded territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nation.

It is an honour and privilege to speak here today on behalf of the constituents of Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

As we watched the COVID-19 pandemic unfold across this planet, this Parliament came to the realization that we needed to take drastic action in Canada to avoid a severe outbreak here. Our first priority was to protect the lives of Canadians, particularly those among us who are most vulnerable to succumbing to this virus: seniors, people with disabilities and people who are marginalized.

From the start of the pandemic, the Green Party suggested that we look at the measures other countries were taking to limit the spread of the virus. In particular, I highlighted the situation in Taiwan and how it closed its borders and used masks and hand sanitizer to stop the spread of the virus. At the beginning of the outbreak, Taiwan was in the top 10 of countries affected by COVID-19. Those simple technologies, masks and hand sanitizers, were very effective, and now Taiwan is ranked at 178th of the countries affected by COVID.

Unfortunately, we did not have the supplies of personal protective equipment we needed across the country for our health workers, never mind a supply of masks for Canadians. We were told by public health officials that masks were not an effective solution to slowing the pandemic. Thankfully, that advice has since changed.

Instead, the drastic action we took included a complete lockdown of our communities and our economy. We took the precautionary approach as we learned about the COVID-19 virus, and we put human lives ahead of money and our economy. We knew that we needed to limit the spread of the virus through social contacts.

As our economy shut down across Canada, we also knew that we needed to do everything we could to protect the workers who had to stay at home and the businesses that needed to lock their doors. As a Green Party MP, I pledged to my constituents that I would work across party lines to do what is best for my constituents and for Canadians, and as the pandemic unfolded in Canada, the Green Party caucus did exactly that. We stood proudly as members of team Canada and did everything we could to put the interests of Canadians first during the pandemic.

We put forward good ideas, such as the guaranteed livable income, to ensure that no citizen would be left in dire economic circumstances in which they could not pay their rent or mortgage, or could not put food on the table for themselves or their families. This is a program we have championed for over a decade, and we are happy to see other parties and MPs picking up on the idea. Unfortunately, the government has not adopted a guaranteed livable income. Instead, it has created a flawed, patchwork system to help individual Canadians.

My riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith is like many ridings across Canada. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine of our local economy. They employ almost 90% of the private-sector workers. These small and medium-sized businesses needed help to get through the economic crisis that was created by the lockdown. They needed help retaining their workers, paying their rent and covering the hard costs associated with running a business.

The Green Party caucus looked at what other countries were doing to deal with the economic fallout of the pandemic and how they protected their workers and businesses, and we put forward those ideas to the federal government. When the federal government first proposed a 10% wage subsidy, we, along with other MPs, said that was not good enough. We proposed the same 80% wage subsidy that Denmark had established. The government listened and increased the wage subsidy to 75%.

We heard from local businesses, chambers of commerce, business associations and the non-profit sector that businesses were going to need help paying their rent and covering the hard costs associated with running a business. We passed those concerns on to the government, and the government responded with programs such as the Canada emergency business account and the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program. I commend the government for taking these actions, but just like the initial wage subsidy, there were serious flaws with these programs.

Green Party MPs, along with MPs from all the parties, heard from small and medium-sized businesses, including indigenous-owned businesses, that they were not eligible for the programs for one reason or another. The parameters were too tight and the gaps in the programs too large. There were many businesses in my riding that were not able to take advantage of these programs because they did not fit the criteria. Again, the government listened, and some much-needed changes were made, but there were still problems.

Many small businesses in my riding had serious problems trying to apply for the emergency business account. The big banks kept rejecting their applications based on weird technicalities. They then passed the buck to the CRA, which passed the buck back to the banks, leaving small businesses in a lurch with stressful uncertainties and feeling like ping-pong balls.

The rent subsidy program to help small businesses also had serious flaws because landlords had to apply for their business tenants. This ended up being onerous on landlords, who had to be responsible for the declarations of their tenants. Many small businesses were unable to take advantage of the program because their landlords were not willing to take part.

As a result, many small businesses have not been able to pay their rent, or have incurred serious debt in order to do so. The new rent relief program needs to be retroactive to April 1 to help those businesses that are surviving on a razor's edge.

There are business sectors that have been hit much harder than other sectors, in particular the tourism, hospitality and entertainment sectors. They have very little hope of recovering in the near term. These businesses need sector-specific support.

If we do not support these small businesses, the goods and services they provide will be swallowed up by multinational giants, and we will see the wealth and prosperity sucked out of our communities.

In my constituency of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, many businesses have not been able to make it through the pandemic. They have already closed their doors for good. At the same time, companies like Amazon are making money hand over fist as more Canadians shop online. It is clear that companies like Amazon need to pay their fair share of taxes in Canada and contribute to our government coffers to assist Canadians through this pandemic.

We have also seen how the extremely wealthy in this country have been making huge profits during this pandemic. The richest 20 billionaires in Canada increased their wealth by—