Debates of June 17th, 2021

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, like the hon. member, I believe that the issue of temporary foreign workers is plaguing all tourism operators across the country. I have heard from numerous tourism operations across the country, including in my own riding, about the need for labour and the need for temporary foreign workers.

To the member's point, yes, this government is operating in silos. It is not talking to the stakeholders. It is not assisting with meeting the needs that are so important to them as we move forward and look towards the recovery that we all want.

Among stakeholders across the country, there was almost unanimity among everyone I have spoken to. Why is the government ending programs like the CEWS and the CERS and the Canada recovery benefit this summer, when almost all of the stakeholders asked for those programs to be extended until the end of the year?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's riding and mine have a lot of similarities. We are border ridings, we rely on tourism and we both have a large and important wine industry.

I am wondering if the member could comment on the recent news that the government that had pledged $102 million over two years to help the wine industry get through COVID and get through the WTO challenges and the loss of the excise tax exemption—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Niagara Falls for a brief answer.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct that the challenges the grape and wine industry faces are the result of the government's own actions. The government caused the problems that resulted in the World Trade Organization challenge, and on the $102 million, which is divided in the first year, I am already hearing from stakeholders that it is insufficient to meet the needs that those stakeholders, wineries and growers have.

Again, the government is not talking to the sector and it is not talking to the industry. That needs to change if we are going to see benefits resulting from it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, whom I affectionately refer to as my favourite MP.

On June 9, the House adopted Motion No. 69, which was moved by my colleague from Montarville. The motion presents six concrete measures to help the government take more effective action against tax evasion and tax avoidance.

This evening, I would like to remind the House of those six measures. I expect the government to take action. I would also like to remind the House that our role as legislators involves guiding the government on such motions. Since the motion was adopted, I expect concrete action to be taken. I expect the government to follow through on this.

The first measure is as follows:

amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;

Here, the motion calls for subsection 5907(1) of the income tax regulations to be repealed.

I would note that this subsection, which was adopted behind closed doors, allows Canadian corporations to repatriate money tax-free from their subsidiaries in one of the 23 tax havens with which Canada has a tax information exchange agreement.

This measure would change things so that any income repatriated by a Canadian corporation would be taxed. There is no need for a bill to do that. The motion was adopted in the House, and the order was sent to the government. All the minister had to do was delete it from the income tax regulations, thereby revolutionizing the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is what we are asking the government to do. We are in a pandemic, and spending levels are higher than ever. The motion proposes measures that will enable to government to bring in more revenue and increase tax fairness.

The second measure is as follows:

review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada;

When a company registers a subsidiary or a billionaire establishes a trust abroad, that subsidiary or trust is considered a foreign national, independent from the Canadian citizen or company that created it, and its income becomes non-taxable.

In taxation jargon, these subsidiaries or trusts are referred to as permanent establishments, in other words, they have a taxable fixed place of business independent of their owner. In many cases, they are shell companies with no real activity. There is no justification for treating them differently from any other bank account and exempting the income they generate from tax.

The Standing Committee on Finance is looking into shell companies set up on the Isle of Man by KPMG. Things need to change. The motion adopted by the House contains a measure to do that. We expect the government to take action with a view to collecting additional revenue in order to offset the additional expenses arising from the pandemic.

The third measure is as follows:

require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose, in their annual reports, a list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would have been subject to had their income been reported in Canada;

This may surprise many people, but for years banks were required to include that in their annual reports. It used to be released and that requirement needs to be reinstated. Here, the House is calling on the government to require the banks to be transparent again. It would just take a simple directive from the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The government can send this notification and this very simple measure could be applied very quickly because it does not require any international negotiations or any legislative or regulatory change.

In 2019, the six Bay Street banks made a record profit of $46 billion. That is a 50% increase over five years. In 2020, despite the pandemic, they made $41 billion in profits. Their profits rise, but they pay less tax because they report their most profitable activities in tax havens, where their assets keep growing.

Until the door to the use of tax havens is closed shut, consumers could at least be able to choose their financial institution in an informed manner, and taxpayers would be able to judge whether the banks deserve government assistance.

Some of the measures the government announced in its latest budget are consistent with the fourth measure, which reads as follows:

review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside;

We see this in rich countries. There are two pieces of good news in this budget. First, the government will finally start collecting the GST on services sold by digital multinationals as of July 1, so two weeks from now. This tax change was included in the notice of ways and means that the House voted on.

It is hard to understand why Ottawa waited so long, when Quebec has been doing it for two years and it is going great, but as they say, better late than never.

Also, still on the topic of this measure, the budget announces the government's plan to tax multinational Internet companies on their activities at a rate of 3% of their sales in Canada beginning on January 1, 2022. This commitment might be merely hot air, however, since there is talk of a possible implementation after the likely date of the next election. There is speculation that it will be called in mid-August, if the polls remain comfortable for the party in power, but still, this commitment is good news. It will be really good when it happens.

During the last election campaign, which was not so long ago, the Bloc Québécois proposed such a measure and the use of the revenue generated to compensate the victims of web giants, the creators. We are talking about the artists and the media who do not receive copyright fees from the web giants that use their content. The government is not going that far, but is instead reporting this GAFAM tax in the consolidated revenue fund. Nevertheless, we applaud this measure. It is a good start.

The fifth measure is as follows:

work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion;

This is an extremely important measure. This needs to happen. Experts told the committee that the problem was that the information was not accessible; we cannot see the information. The fifth measure adopted by the House changes that. In many cases, tax havens are opaque, and it is impossible to know who truly benefits from the companies and trusts that are set up. Often, we only know the name of the trustee that manages them or the legal or accounting firm that created them, but not the name of the person hiding behind them. Such a setup is a real boon for fraudsters who can hide their money with complete impunity.

This type of registry already exists in Luxembourg, but it is accessible only to financial institutions. These institutions do their own audits, but this type of registry must be made available to governments or tax agencies. Tax evasion and avoidance has gone on too long. We do not know who is hiding behind these companies. I am calling on the government to implement the fifth measure.

The sixth and final measure is a very important one:

use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them.

As members know, in response to the 2008-09 financial crisis, the OECD has been working hard to combat the use of tax havens. It was then that countries started to seriously go after tax havens within the OECD by launching a broad multilateral instrument on international taxation and tax base recovery called the framework on base erosion and profit shifting, better known as BEPS. Some progress has been made since the initiative was launched, but not much.

We are facing a global economic crisis, as countries took on record amounts of debt in an effort to provide income support and stabilize the economy. These efforts are absolutely warranted when they are well done and well used. However, this crisis is a reason to emphasize that everyone needs to pay their fair share and implement, once and for all, the recommendations proposed by the OECD. This is extremely important. It is a matter of justice and tax fairness.

In conclusion, I remind members that less than two weeks ago the House adopted a motion setting out these six actions. We are calling on the government to move forward. These are good solutions, and the current pandemic is the right time to implement them.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it appears the hon. member and I share a passion regarding tax evasion. As the critic for national revenue, I had the opportunity to write an Order Paper question on the matter of high-net-worth individuals, people who have wealth over $50 million. It is clear the Prime Minister wants to make it look like he is taking action on tax evasion while he continues to protect the wealthiest among us.

Despite the CRA's over 6,000 audits, and an increase of almost 3,000% in funding for its program expenditures, there have been no criminal prosecutions and consequently no convictions of millionaires who are not paying their fair share. Could the hon. member expand on the ways in which the ultrawealthy in this country continue to cheat Canadians out of their fair share of taxes?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Hamilton Centre for his question and his comment. I completely agree with him: this is unacceptable. Things have to change, and that means taking concrete action.

Here is an example. Previously, a former KPMG associate appeared before the parliamentary committee. During his career, this person participated in putting together schemes that enabled multimillionaires and billionaires to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. He may still be doing so.

I told him that people with low incomes, such as orderlies and nurses, paid between 35% and 50% tax, while the super-rich paid just peanuts, something around 0%. I asked him if that was immoral. He replied that it was legal and refused to say more.

We have to change how the people who design these immoral schemes see things. That which is immoral must be made illegal. We have to do more.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we want to go after all these people who are cheating on their taxes, but unless we fix the other side of the equation, which is the out-of-control spending of the government, it will not do us any good. I wonder if he could comment on that?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her question. I congratulate her on her work in the House and her tireless commitment. She is making a difference and she has my utmost respect.

We must indeed pay attention to revenue. We must have tax fairness and tax justice. We need to be very careful with government spending. Every time the government spends a dollar, it must remember that it comes out of the taxpayers' pockets or from their collective debt, and so out of the pockets of tomorrow's taxpayers. That is why we must always ensure that funds are used efficiently and effectively.

In a time of crisis, if there is one lesson the economy has taught us, it is that implementing stimulus programs, for example, an income support program for those who lost their income during the pandemic, is the least of all evils.

We are in favour of such programs, but they must be properly implemented. That money should absolutely not be misappropriated by the cronies at We Charity. Our job as legislators is to keep an eye on the government to make sure it does not commit this type of reprehensible blunder.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance. His speeches are always good.

He addressed the issue of tax evasion. As my colleague from Hamilton Centre said, tax evasion costs Canadians up to $25 billion per year. One can only imagine all of the support and programs that could be offered to Canadians if we had that money.

What surprises my colleague the most about the astronomical amounts that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have lost to tax havens every year?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his question. I would also like to commend him for his work in the Standing Committee on Finance. He is the one who proposed a motion to have the committee study tax evasion and tax avoidance. I think that we succeeded in making a big difference. We got involved and we took our work seriously. My colleague asked some very good questions today, and I tip my hat to him. We are fighting the same fight.

It is all about fairness. It is true that we could go after a lot of money. Personally, the first thing I think of is low-income earners, ordinary people, people who work for minimum wage and who pay high tax rates.

The money we earn as MPs enables us to live a decent lifestyle with some left over to splurge or save. However, low-income earners do not have that luxury. They work hard for every dollar they earn. We see some people living lavishly in luxury and abundance and not paying taxes. That needs to change.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even though I always run out of time, I will allow myself the luxury of taking a few seconds to extend a personal greeting to you. I will take advantage of the fact that I am delivering a speech in your presence to say that, during the brief time that we have worked together, you have been very pleasant and very efficient. I really enjoy your creative way with the French language.

Now to the matter at hand. I really have a lot to say about the main estimates and the supplementary estimates. I will try to be efficient.

First of all, we need to talk about how this money is being spent. We need to talk about how this money comes in from across the country and is being taken out of the hands of levels of government that are closer to the people. Case in point, health transfers to Quebec and the provinces. I simply cannot rise in the House to talk about expenditures and budgets without talking about that injustice. The provinces are unanimous in their demand for $28 billion, but that is not in the budget. The federal share has to go up to 35%. That is essential.

I will also talk about old age security. How could anyone possibly sleep at night after voting for a budget that, with a deficit of nearly $400 billion, does not improve the quality of life of those who built our society? I can still hardly believe it, and every time I talk about it in the House, I get a feeling of revulsion that turns my stomach. It is outrageous, and I urge the government to act quickly on this.

Some may think no one is talking about this anymore, but we have people calling our offices and commenting on social media every day, asking us what we are doing, why they are not hearing about this issue anymore, and whether we are still discussing it. I always reply that we still are, and that is what I am doing here tonight.

Now I would like to talk about the securities regulator. In this budget implementation case we want to pull back spending. Fortunately, my favourite MP, who spoke before me, was very effective in committee and managed to reduce the funding. We must be vigilant, and I invite the members of this Parliament, especially the opposition, to be vigilant with us and block any possible return of this odious attempt to further dispossess and weaken Quebec. This is unacceptable. We cannot accept losing control of our economic institutions.

A provision in the budget implementation bill states that companies that received the Canada emergency wage subsidy may not pay bonuses to their senior executives. Someone should have mentioned that to Air Canada. Fortunately, public pressure did the job. I think measures like these are appropriate.

However, I cannot help but draw a parallel with the fact that the wage subsidy was used by almost everyone here except us. Every party in the House benefited from that subsidy, or rather abused it; I am not sure which word to use. It is a measure that we voted in favour of in good faith to help our businesses, but people will use that money for their election campaigns in the coming months. If that is not scandalous, I do not know what is. Not only do the parties need to stop receiving the subsidy, they also need to pay it back. That money does not belong to the parties.

I could speak at length about what was done during the COVID‑19 crisis, including the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, which discouraged people from working. We rose many times in the House to have CERB help people get back to work. CERB harmed our businesses. It has left a mark and it is not over. The topic comes up every time I meet with my municipalities. This is a crazy situation knowing that we have a labour shortage. Earlier my colleague mentioned that using foreign workers was one way to overcome the labour shortage. These foreign workers are essential in many sectors.

The Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is in chaos right now. Nothing is moving. Visa processing has been suspended and businesses are not getting answers. They are calling us and are desperate. Even we have a hard time getting answers for them. It is unbelievable.

There are certain changes that could reasonably be made right now, for example to the percentage of temporary foreign workers authorized to work in the agri-food industries. This has been discussed a lot at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the members unanimously agreed that the percentage must be doubled at least. Let us do it. Let us make it easier for these people to integrate as well. The Bloc Québécois has made some concrete proposals, such as offering three-year visas; doing fewer market impact assessments because they are not really necessary since the job market does not change that quickly; and allowing for flexibility.

I spoke about the agri-food sector, but I also want to talk about the hospitality and tourism industries. They are really struggling. Restaurants are shutting down in my riding. It is heartbreaking to see, since these institutions have been around 25, 30 or 40 years. They are so good that they put towns on the map. These establishments have put up signs saying that they do not have the staff to reopen. We need to find solutions. One way to get more workers for our businesses is to vote for smart measures that encourage people to find work. I am talking about incentives rather than disincentives.

I would be remiss if I talked about temporary foreign workers without mentioning that, on June 9, the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, the Association des producteurs de fraises et framboises du Québec, and the Quebec Produce Growers Association urged the Liberal government not to abandon them, but that is precisely what is happening.

Let us remember when the mandatory quarantines were established. Would anyone here have dared to say that a foreign worker need not quarantine for 14 days? No one would have. Let us remember that the Bloc Québécois has always clearly stated that quarantines are a federal responsibility. The government did not carry out its responsibilities. It downloaded them onto our farmers. Yes, farmers are capable of carrying them out. Yes, they managed this in an extraordinary way, but it was not up to them to do it, and it was especially not up to them to pay for it. Not only were they forced to manage the quarantines and to provide multiple housing units, but, in addition, they have to pay the workers when they are here, which is only right.

The government introduced a measure, namely a $1,500 support. In their letter, which I believe and hope was acknowledged, they ask that this program be maintained. Yesterday, June 16, the amount was cut in half to $750. Why? Does it cost less to quarantine now than it did two weeks ago? Is it not as necessary now as it was two weeks ago?

I am going to read the last sentence from the minister's announcement because I do not have the time to read more. “This program will be available as long as the Quarantine Act is in force and the isolation protocol is followed.” Is that not currently the case? The government and the minister must keep their word and not abandon our producers before the war on COVID‑19 is over.

On top of that, there is also the Switch Health saga. They have calculated the costs. A standard 14-day quarantine costs $1,750 per worker, but $3,000 if the worker has to quarantine at a hotel. With all the chaos caused by Switch Health, it costs $113 more per worker per additional day, and $223 more per worker per additional day if the worker is quarantining at a hotel.

What is the government telling farmers about that? The government is saying that it is sorry that it has put farmers in dire straits but that it took two months to work things out. That is unacceptable. We need to support our farmers. We need to think about the people on the ground when voting on all of these expenditures. I want to briefly mention what has been happening in the House over the past few days and invite members of this Parliament to work constructively in the few days we have left. We have a pile of fundamental bills that we need to vote on.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois member for his comments.

He talked about his riding and about the restaurants, stores and small businesses that are closing because they cannot find enough workers. The same thing is happening in my riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

My colleague talked about incentives. Can he elaborate on that?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his laudable efforts in the language of Molière. It is much appreciated, bravo.

I could talk about this all day. What measures has the government taken to encourage people to work, for example, in the agri-food sector? Labour shortages are nothing new. They have been around for years.

What measures have been taken, if only to get the information out or help with recruitment? What measures have been taken to promote permanent residency for foreign workers? Of course, there have been pilot projects, but it takes a long time to set things up. Can we innovate? Can we use our heads?

Also, there are other ways to make up for the labour shortage, including through innovation, a bit of mechanization, and automation, but that takes investments. There is chronic underinvestment across the entire agri-food industry in Canada and Quebec right now. That makes me worry a lot about the future. When one has not invested in one's house in a long time, sometimes it seems as though it would be cheaper to tear it down and build a new one.

Do we want to see closures in 15 or 20 years?

The government must show foresight and it must take action.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his speech.

I am saddened to hear that several businesses in these picturesque villages, like Saint‑Élie‑de‑Caxton, Charette and Saint‑Paulin, had to close their doors due to labour shortages.

I would like to ask my colleague a fairly specific question. He says that CERB was too much, that business subsidies were mismanaged, and so on. However, for 15 months, the Bloc told us that it was not enough, not fast enough, never enough. Today, he says it was too much.

Did his riding benefit from CERB?

Can he look his constituents, the businesspeople and all the families that were saved by CERB in the eye and tell them that CERB and the subsidy were not necessary?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions and his knowledge of my neck of the woods. I am touched.

He misunderstood part of my speech. I did not say that it was too much. I said that it was mismanaged. There is a big difference.

He asked whether I can look my constituents in the eye, and the answer is of course. I mentioned the municipalities. When I meet with them, people tell me that CERB is no good. I start by telling them that honestly, we in the Bloc Québécois agreed to adopt it quickly in March 2020. However, at the end of April 2020, we did not say to end CERB. We said that it needed to incentivize work. There is a nuance here that is important to grasp.

The wage subsidy was one of our proposals, and we are proud to have maintained the employment relationship between businesses and employees. It was a good idea. In fact, it needs to keep going. I am not saying we need to reduce spending. I am saying that we need to spend wisely.

During the summer, we made a pact here with the Deputy Prime Minister. I get a little upset when I get questions like that. I need to calm down. We pushed for a measure that would get people back to work, but the Liberals did not go ahead with that. They said the machine was too big to do it. I have some choice words to say about that, but I cannot say them here. Seriously. Students who worked more than 18 hours lost their whole benefit. They would have had to work 43 hours to earn that same amount. Students are not lazy, and they are smart.

Governments need to bring in measures that make sense and get people back to work. For that to happen, there has to be collaboration. The government has to listen to the opposition. Things were going well at the start of the crisis, but before long the government stopped listening.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am coming to you from the traditional unceded territory of the QayQayt First Nation and the Coast Salish peoples. I thank them for this privilege.

I would like to start off by paying tribute to frontline workers, health care workers and emergency responders across the country. We have seen over the last 15 months, as our country has entered into this unparalleled health crisis, incredible bravery and incredible dedication on behalf of all those Canadians who have tried to keep us alive and well, and who continue to serve us during this pandemic.

Now, we can look, and there is a potential light at the end of the tunnel, as we start to see, slowly, the number of infections going down. We still have much work to do, there is no doubt, but we can start to envisage what kind of society we can actually build post-COVID.

I do that from my background as a financial administrator. As members know, I started out my adult working life as a factory worker and eventually was able to save up enough money to go back to school and learn about finances and financial management. I was able, fortunately, to use that in a variety of social enterprises and organizations.

The one thing I learned that is fundamental, when we talk about financial administration, is that we have to follow the money to see what the priorities of a social enterprise, business or organization are. What the priorities are is often dictated by where the flow of money goes. In this debate and this discussion around the main estimates and where we are as a country, it is fundamentally important to ask the question “Where is the money flowing to?” That is why this main estimates process and this debate tonight are so fundamentally important.

As members well know, in our corner of the House, and this dates back to the time of Tommy Douglas, within the NDP we have always believed that it is fundamentally important to make sure that those who are the wealthiest in society pay their fair share. Tommy Douglas was able to, in the first democratic socialist government in North America, actually put in place universal health care. He was able to do that because he put in place a fair tax system.

We can look at the NDP governments since that time. I am certainly not telling tales out of school. As members are well aware, the federal ministry of finance is not a hotbed of New Democrats. However, the federal ministries of finance have consistently, over the last decades, acknowledged that NDP governments have been the best in terms of balancing budgets and providing services for people. That is the same approach that we will take, one day, to provide the type of stewardship that we believe is fundamental to renewing our country, providing the supports, and building a society where everyone matters.

Let us look at where the current government stands, in terms of that flow of money. Prior to the budget, we put forward, and it should have been reflected in the estimates process, a variety of smart ideas that other countries have already incorporated as we go through this pandemic. We believe that we should be putting into place, as other countries have done, a wealth tax. We should be saying to the billionaires and the ultrarich of this country that they have to pay their fair share. They benefited from this pandemic and their wealth has increased, and now they have to give some of that back, to make sure that we all have the wherewithal to move forward.

We also proposed a pandemic profits tax, because we have seen in previous crises, like the Second World War, that putting that type of practice into place ensures that companies maintain the same profit levels but are not profiting unduly from the suffering that so many people have experienced through COVID-19.

We have also been foremost with regard to cracking down on overseas tax havens. As members know, I have spoken out about this. The member for Burnaby South, our national leader, the member for Hamilton Centre and the rest of the NDP caucus have been vociferous in this regard because these lose an astounding amount of taxpayers' money every year. They are the result of both Conservative actions and Liberal actions.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer pointed out two years ago that Canadians lose $25 billion every year to overseas tax havens. That $25 billion could meet an enormous amount of need. It could serve in job creation or the transition to a clean energy economy. All of those things could be accomplished, but what we see is an intricate network of tax havens that has built up over the years because of both Conservative and Liberal government decisions. The cost to Canadians is profoundly strong when we think of $25 billion a year in taxpayers' money being lost to overseas tax havens.

When we couple that $25 billion with a pandemic profits tax, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer evaluated at $8 billion, and a wealth tax, which would bring in $10 billion a year, we start to see what financial underpinnings could be put into place to actually meet the needs of Canadians across the country. We often see that there is a flow of money to the ultrarich: the wealthiest banks and billionaires in this country. At the same time, we often see that those who have the most critical needs do not even get a trickle of that financial flow.

At the beginning of this crisis, where did the government decide to flow its money? We know this now. This is no secret. In fact, the Liberal government seems to be proud of this fact. Within four days of the pandemic hitting in Canada, an astounding, unbelievable, record amount of $750 billion was made available in liquidity supports to Canada's big banks through a variety of mechanisms and federal institutions: OSFI, the CMHC and the Bank of Canada. That is $750 billion. It is unparalleled in our history and unprecedented.

If we go back to the Harper government, there were criticisms at that time because during the global financial crisis $116 billion in liquidity support was provided to the banking sector. Of course the banking sector prospered enormously from it, but $750 billion is so difficult to get our minds around. It is a vast amount of money. It is a colossal flow of an unprecedented amount of cash in liquidity supports to the banking sector.

The banks have responded accordingly. There were no conditions attached. They jacked up their service fees, as so many Canadians know. They did not reduce their interest rates to zero, as we saw in the credit union movement. Credit unions, such as Community Savings Credit Union in Vancouver, reduced their line of credit interest to zero and their credit card rates to zero because they knew Canadians were suffering. Canadians had to struggle to put food on the table, and the credit union sector in many respects responded to that, but the banking sector did not. It just kept seeing that money roll in. During the pandemic, its profits have been $60 billion so far. It is unbelievable.

I pointed out earlier that there is no pandemic profits tax and there is no wealth tax. Canada's billionaires have increased their wealth during this pandemic by an astounding $80 billion, yet there are no measures for any sort of fairness or to make sure the ultrarich pay their fair share. We can follow the money and see, with the Liberal government, that as we went through an unprecedented crisis its first and foremost thought was for the banks and billionaires of this country. This is unique in the responses of governments through crises in the past.

During the Second World War when we needed to win the battle against Nazism and fascism, the federal government put into place an excess profits tax and wealth taxes to ensure that we had the wherewithal to win the war effort. After the Second World War, we were able to build an unprecedented amount of public housing, hospitals and educational institutions across the country and to build the transportation sector. The country boomed in so many respects because the investments were there starting with a fair tax system, but not this time. There is no wealth tax, no pandemic profits tax and no cracking down on overseas tax havens.

What did the NDP do? We hear rumours that the Prime Minister desperately wants to call an election, and we will all be asked what we did during the pandemic.

Under the leadership of the member for Burnaby South, the NDP went to work immediately. We saw the huge amounts of money that were made available to the banking sector right off the bat, and we started pushing for an emergency response benefit that could lift people above the poverty line. We forced and pushed because we had seen from the best examples of other countries that we needed to put in a place a 75% wage subsidy. We pushed hard, as members know, to make that a reality.

The track record is very clear. We pushed in the House of Commons for supports for students, seniors and people with disabilities, with the big caveat that the Liberal government never put in place wholesale supports for all people with disabilities. It has now asked them to wait three years before there is any hope of support. People with disabilities will have to wait three years while banks had to wait four days in the midst of a pandemic. That is the national tragedy we see with the flow of money going to the ultrarich, the wealthiest, to make sure that banks and billionaires benefit first.

New Democrats fought those fights and won many of them over the course of the past year. I know that has made a difference. We still see suffering. We still see people lining up at food banks in unprecedented numbers. Tragically we still see people with disabilities who are barely getting by. Tragically we still see people closing, for the last time, the doors of businesses that they may have devoted their lives to building up. These are community businesses that served the public and created jobs in communities across this country, but in so many cases those small businesses have had to close their doors. Nothing could be more tragic.

As we come out of such a profound crisis, we see many people being left behind; however, the government has put forward a budget that slashes the CERB benefits even more. The CRB was slashed from $500 a week to $300 a week, which is below the poverty level. We see the government responding to the economic crisis of seniors by saying that those over 75 get a top-up on their OAS to lift them up to the poverty line, but those under 75 are out of luck with the government.

That contrasts vividly with the government paying out money through the wage subsidy to profitable companies that then paid huge executive bonuses or often paid dividends to their investors. The government says that is okay, despite the NDP's warnings from the very beginning that it had to put measures into place. It is not a problem: It will recover money elsewhere, but then it slashes the CERB benefits for people who need them the most.

What does this mean, in terms of an estimates process, and how would the NDP approach the issue of making sure we meet the needs of Canadians and respond to the crisis that so many people are living through in this country? As I have already mentioned, New Democrats would tackle it from the revenue side. We would make sure that the ultrarich pay their fair share. We would crack down on overseas tax havens. The government never introduced a single piece of legislation that adequately responded to the crisis in financing we see with the hemorrhaging of $25 billion a year to overseas tax havens.

The CRA was before the finance committee last week. The year before, I asked who had been prosecuted in the Panama papers, the Bahama papers, the Paradise papers and the Isle of Man scam. A year ago, CRA was forced to say it had never prosecuted anybody. This year I asked the same question, and the result was exactly the same. No company and no individual has ever been prosecuted. We have thousands of names of people who have been using these particular strategies to not pay taxes, yet the CRA has never had the tools in place to take them on.

New Democrats would make sure that everyone pays their fair share, that the ultrarich actually pay their fair share, that billionaires do not get off scot free and that the companies that try to take their earnings overseas have to pay income tax and corporate tax. We would make sure of that.

What would we do in the estimates? What would an NDP estimates process look like? We have already seen signs of that over the past year. We have been tabling legislation, bringing forward bills and making sure that we actually put into place the programs Canadians need.

Members will recall I tabled Bill C-213, the Canada pharmacare act, ably supported by my colleagues for Vancouver Kingsway and Vancouver East. We brought that to a vote with the support of 100,000 Canadians who had written to their members of Parliament. Liberals and Conservatives voted that down, even though we know pharmacare is something that will make a huge difference in the quality of life for Canadians. It is estimated that 10 million Canadians cannot pay for their medication. Hundreds die every year because they cannot afford their medication. For thousands of others, families are forced to choose between putting food on the table and paying for their medication. We can end that suffering. At the same time the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that independent officer of Parliament who can tell us with such accuracy what the net impacts of policies are, has told us we would save about $4 billion overall as a people. We would be able to reduce the costs of medications, so the estimates process would include universal public pharmacare in this country.

As we saw with the member for St. John's East just last night, we would be bringing in dental care for all those who do not have access to dental care. Why is that important? We heard yesterday about a person in Sioux Lookout, Ontario, who passed away because they did not have the financial ability to pay for the dental work that was vitally important for them to be able to eat. These are tragedies that are repeated so often in this country.

What else would we see in the estimates? The guaranteed livable basic income was brought to the House of Commons by the member for Winnipeg Centre. We have seen how so many members of our caucus have fought for the rights of indigenous peoples. It should be a source of shame for the government that dozens of indigenous communities still do not have safe drinking water, six years after the Prime Minister's promise. As the member for Burnaby South said in response to a question from a journalist, how would we ever accept the cities of Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal not having safe drinking water? It is simply astounding, yet we have no wealth tax or pandemic profit tax in place. We have no set of priorities that allows us to ensure that all communities in this country have safe drinking water.

We saw the incredible tragedy of the genocide in residential schools. There are first nations communities that do not have the funding to find their missing, murdered, dead and disappeared children. This has to be a national priority as part of reconciliation. It cannot simply be pretty words. We have to act, and that means ensuring that when we say “follow the money”, it is no longer the very wealthy or ultrarich who receive the vast majority of federal funds, but the people across this country, indigenous peoples, who get the supports that they need and the quality of life they deserve.

There is the issue of the right to housing. Again, it would be part of our estimates to ensure that all Canadians have roofs over their heads at night. This is not rocket science. It takes investment. Other countries have had the right to housing instilled. In a country with a climate as cold as Canada's, housing should be a fundamental right of every Canadian.

We would provide supports to peoples with disabilities, students and seniors. People have been struggling through this pandemic, yet students are still paying their student loans, seniors are being denied the increased OAS if they are under age 75 and people with disabilities are being asked to wait three years. The Prime Minister wants to pump $20 billion into the TMX pipeline instead of investing in clean energy that would result in hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The estimates process with an NDP government would be different and better. We will continue to fight for a country where no one is left behind.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to give a huge shout-out to you for your career. You are retiring. What an amazing job you have done. You are so honoured by everyone. It was way past midnight last night, and you were there. That was great.

I always enjoy the member's very thoughtful speeches. I am going to ask him a question because of his background in finance, which I could not ask other people because they probably would not have any idea.

There is an innovative idea in the budget about Canada's social financing bonds. I just wonder if the member has any thoughts on that yet.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon always has thoughtful questions. He knows as well as I do, I am sure, that the issue of social bonds stems from Jack Layton and the NDP's green bonds. We brought them forward through a number of election campaigns. In fact, the member might recall that back in 2011 that was a major part of what the NDP put forward. Canadians could invest in that transition to clean energy, the green new deal, ensuring hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The building trades estimate that over the next four decades up to three million new jobs will come from investments in clean energy and the clean energy economy, so the green bonds issue was the inspiration. The social bonds are something that is much smaller in scope and scale.

I think it is fair to say that, given the challenges that we face, we need to be bold. We need to be looking to solutions that actually make a difference in Canadians' lives.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting at the finance committee while we heard the CRA talk about tax evasion and the Panama papers. We heard first-hand, in response to this member's question that, for two years in a row, there have been no convictions. Could the member expand upon that?

In the case of the Panama papers in particular, the informant evidently put his life in jeopardy in order to bring justice and capture people who are avoiding paying these taxes. As the late great Jim Flaherty said, every time there is a tax evader, it means that middle-class Canadians have to pay more taxes.

I wonder if the hon. member could expand upon the impact to Canada and the personal impact to him hearing over and over again that there have been no convictions with respect to the Panama papers, despite so much being sacrificed to get those materials out.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's presence at the finance committee today. This is something that should be on the front page of the Globe and Mail and the National Post if they were actually covering important issues like this. We have databases that are publicly accessible of thousands of Canadian companies and individuals. CRA admits that they have never prosecuted a single one. This is a litany of failures. We have had the national revenue minister get up in the House of Commons and say that they are taking care of it, when we know for a fact that there has never been a single prosecution.

I think the failures of the government are evident to everybody. There has been a hemorrhage of $25 billion a year. That is an incredible cost to our economy, communities, people's quality of life and Canadian families. It is at an enormous cost, yet the government has not tabled a single piece of legislation to provide the tools for the CRA to prosecute. It is simply doing nothing to stop the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which he ended with a few words on the environment. I would like him to say more about that, because I was so disappointed by the NDP's behaviour at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development during the study of Bill C‑12.

We already knew that the Liberals were talking out of both sides of their mouths on the fight against climate change, but I was certain that the NDP and the Bloc held the same beliefs. However, the NDP gave the Liberals a free pass, which means that the climate law will be weak and toothless.

In the budget, the Liberals earmarked $17.6 billion for what they have the nerve to call a green recovery when, from the start of the pandemic, they have given $18 billion to oil companies. Scientists are saying that if we continue to subsidize oil companies and invest in oil, we will never reach our targets or achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Does my colleague agree with me that we must stop giving oil companies government subsidies?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.

The NDP has been campaigning against oil subsidies for years. As my colleague knows, we have been campaigning across the country not just against these subsidies, but also against the TransMountain pipeline, which crosses my riding.

We have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer several times to give us an assessment of the increased construction costs for this pipeline, as well as its lack of viability. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the government would never turn a profit on this pipeline, which will continue to swallow up taxpayers' money for years to come. The government refuses to listen—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Vancouver East.