Debates of April 26th, 2023

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Taxation

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually this evening to pursue a question I initially asked in question period on February 13. This was in advance of receiving our federal budget from the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance did respond, on the floor of the House, to the question I asked that day.

I have contrasted what Canada is doing to go after the excess profit garnered by particularly large oil corporations and fossil fuel companies to what is being done in the United States. I cited, at that point, what had been a recent state of the union address from U.S. President Joe Biden, who recently spoke in this very place, that called out big oil for its excessive profits.

The President of the United States called that “outrageous”. He pledged to quadruple the tax on corporate stock buybacks. Around the same time the Secretary-General of the United Nations called such excess profits “immoral”.

In Canada, the biggest oil and gas companies in this country amassed more than $66 billion in profits in one year. That is double what they accumulated in the previous decade.

I think of the call months ago from the business pages of The Globe and Mail, which is not generally a strong critic of excess profits. The Globe and Mail veteran journalist, Eric Reguly, commented that not only were these excess profits, but they amounted to, in his words, “war profiteering”.

My parents' generation did not tolerate war profiteering. War profiteers were not celebrated and rewarded. What Eric Reguly's column pointed out was that the excess profits of the fossil fuel sector, in the recent past, have nothing to do with business acumen or good planning for which corporations and their shareholders should be rewarded. It was entirely due to Putin's brutal attack on Ukraine, allowing some corporations to benefit, and I will again use the word of United Nation's Secretary-General Guterres, who called it “immoral”. This is almost unbelievable.

We just had, before the environment committee days ago, testimony from Mr. Brad Corson. He is the CEO of Imperial Oil, which is really an American company operating in Canada. It is a subsidiary of Exxon. I struggle to understand how the poor man made ends meet when just a year and a half ago he only made $8.5 million a year. This last year, his salary doubled, so he now makes more than $17 million a year.

This is the same company that did not divulge, and one could say “hid”, from first nations and Métis people in the vicinity of the oil sands, that toxic materials that were carcinogenics were leaking into the watershed and surrounding areas. He is rewarded with the doubling of his personal salary, but that is nothing compared to the profits received by these oil and gas companies in a period of time when their benefits have to do with Putin's attack on Ukraine. Surely we can do better.

The PBO estimates we could get $8 billion with a tax on excess profits. What are we waiting for?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and the folks in the beautiful province of Nova Scotia. I wish my friend from the Green Party was here in the House today, as it is always lovely to see her. I am pleased to take part in tonight's debate.

When my hon. colleague posed her initial question, she asked about the possibility of increasing the windfall tax in Canada following an announcement made by President Biden. As the Deputy Prime Minister rightly noted, our government has already introduced a 2% share buyback tax, which is double the current U.S. level. We introduced this tax because we absolutely believe it is appropriate for our tax system to encourage Canadian companies to invest in Canada and invest in Canada's workers and our economy.

It does not stop there. Our government has been and remains committed to making sure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. We know that the programs and services Canadians rely on are dependent on a robust national tax base. That is why we have moved forward with several measures since 2015 to ensure that everyone pays their fair share.

Since 2015, we have taken actions to close loopholes, crack down on tax avoidance and ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share. For example, we understand that through the significant use of deductions, credits and other tax preferences, some of the wealthiest Canadians pay little to no personal income tax in a given year. That is why we are proposing, in budget 2023, legislative amendments to raise the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, rate from 15% to 20.5% and to further limit the excessive use of tax preferences. These amendments would generate an estimated $3 billion in revenue over five years, beginning in the 2024 taxation year.

Another proposed reform is that the basic AMT exemption would increase more than fourfold, from $40,000 to $173,000, significantly increasing the income level necessary to pay the AMT. This would result in tax cuts for tens of thousands of middle-class Canadians, while the AMT would more precisely target the very wealthy. Under these reforms, more than 99% of the AMT paid by individual Canadians would be paid by those who earn more than $300,000 per year, and about 80% of the AMT paid would be by those who earn more than $1 million per year.

Budget 2022 announced a permanent increase of the corporate income tax by 1.5% on the largest, most profitable banks and insurance companies. It also announced the Canada recovery dividend of 15% on banks and insurance companies to help support Canada's broader recovery. In addition, our government is committed to phasing out or rationalizing inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that give fossil fuels an unfair advantage over much cleaner solutions. We have accelerated the previous timeline for doing so from 2025 to this year.

In budget 2022, the government also committed to eliminating the flow-through share regime for fossil fuel activities. This is being done by no longer allowing expenditures related to oil, gas and coal exploration and development to be renounced to flow-through share investors for flow-through share agreements entered into after March 31, 2023.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is easily researched that the Government of Canada charges less tax on oil and gas companies than the United States does, and this is in a period of time when we are still subsidizing oil and gas. While I do appreciate the comments from my friend, the hon. parliamentary secretary, we are still subsidizing oil and gas, with increased subsidies in budget 2023, by providing more access to government funds for carbon capture and storage. If those in the industry want to use that method, they should pay for it themselves. We are also introducing a new approach to use fossil fuels in producing hydrogen, which should only be produced from renewable sources so that it is truly green energy.

We have enormous potential in Canada to move to a green economy and to decarbonize, but not if we keep shovelling money at companies that are already experiencing obscene levels of profit.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that we have enormous opportunity here in Canada. We are seeing the things we have done since 2015 come to fruition. We have said from the start that the economy and the environment go hand in hand, and we are seeing partnerships working in a cleaner, greener Canada.

Budget 2023 is making targeted and responsible investments to build a stronger economic future for all Canadians. In the end, these will make Canada a better place to live, work and thrive for everyone. However, our government understands that the programs and services Canadians rely on, including old age security, the Canada child benefit, early learning and child care, and transfers to provinces in support of health care and education, are dependent on a national tax base. That is why, in budget 2023, we built on the progress we have made since 2015 to close loopholes, crack down on tax avoidance and ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share.

Seniors

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to be here today to ask the member some follow-up questions around tax fairness for seniors.

I want to first give a big shout-out to Single Seniors for Tax Fairness for its advocacy and work to bring light and solutions forward around the unfair tax system that negatively impacts single seniors. In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC Seniors and Pensioners Nanaimo has been serving our community for more than 80 years. This organization provides vital services and social activities for seniors.

I am here to talk a little bit more about, and get some more answers around, why we are not implementing the changes necessary to support seniors.

One statistic is that 39% of seniors in Canada are single. Just to clarify, I am defining these seniors as being 65 and older with no partner: single, widowed or divorced. Of these single seniors I am referring to, women are disproportionately represented, for many reasons. One is that they live longer. Another point that is important is that singles need two-thirds of the income of couples to maintain a similar lifestyle to their coupled counterparts.

I think of Margaret, a constituent in my riding who is widowed. She is living off OAS and CPP. She shared with me that she has all these expenses that just keep adding up. She is asking herself when it will stop. She pays $800 each month for prescription drugs. She asked herself if she will be forced to reduce her prescription medications due to their high cost. Margaret has various health conditions that require monitoring by a health professional but she no longer has a family doctor, so she has nobody to turn to for necessary ongoing health concerns. She shared with me that she is suffering and feels like she has been pushed to the side and is not getting any help.

Currently what we see in place is that coupled seniors are experiencing tax advantages, rightfully so. They are able to make the most of their money, through income splitting of pension income, for example, which reduces the amount of taxes that each partner pays, and makes them both often eligible for full OAS payments with no clawbacks. They are able to transfer between portfolios like RRSPs, RRIFs and TFSAs.

Single seniors, on the other hand, are not able to take advantage of these same tax rules. For example, they are not able to split their full pension income. They pay full taxes on pensions, which increases the probability of OAS clawbacks. Ultimately, they are receiving less income. There are multiple ways in which single seniors, just because of their relationship status, are being placed in a position of further disadvantage.

Seniors have contributed to our communities in endless ways. At this time in their lives, more than ever, they should not have to worry about having the funds to make ends meet or about their loved ones not having access to the funds intended for them when they pass.

The question I asked the Prime Minister when he was here earlier was why single seniors are not receiving the same tax advantages as their coupled counterparts. Why is the Liberal government not making the necessary changes to ensure that seniors are not disadvantaged based solely on their relationship status?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of wonderful members of Parliament in the House of Commons, and I can tell colleagues that this member is one of them. I am perfectly willing to continue this conversation about seniors at any time with this member and other members.

I agree wholeheartedly with this member that this is a very important issue. After a lifetime of hard work, seniors deserve a secure retirement. They should not need to be worried about making ends meet.

That is why our government is continuing to step up to put more money into the pockets of seniors, including older women, when they need it most. We recognize that, although global inflation rates are declining, Canadians, including seniors, are facing affordability challenges, particularly when it comes to filling their grocery cart.

That is why, in budget 2023, we created the one-time grocery rebate, providing $2.5 billion in targeted inflation relief to the Canadians who need it the most. This means that 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, including seniors, will benefit from extra money to pay for groceries, transportation, rent and other daily expenses.

I am also happy to say that budget 2023 proposes $13 billion over five years, $4.4 billion ongoing, to implement the Canadian dental care plan. This plan will help up to nine million uninsured Canadians, including seniors, access dental care.

On top of these new measures, budget 2023 also touches on our previous measures for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, which both provide an important stable income for seniors.

Also, allow me to remind members about the programs and recent increases. The OAS program is considered the first pillar of Canada's retirement income system. Benefits under the OAS program include, among others, the basic OAS pension and the GIS for low-income seniors. There are also special allowances for low-income seniors aged 60 to 64, who are the spouses or common-law partners of GIS recipients or who are widowed.

Last summer, our government increased the OAS pension by 10% for seniors over the age of 75, more than half of whom are women, putting over $800 more in the pockets of seniors in just the first year. We also increased the GIS by 10% for nearly a million low-income single seniors. These measures are just a few in a basket of supports that the Government of Canada has provided for seniors.

We also reversed the former government's reckless decision to raise the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 for GIS and OAS, something that would have come into effect this very month without our government's intervention.

We provided tangible assistance in the form of program changes, tax breaks and top-ups. We reduced income taxes through increases to the basic personal amount and, for working Canadians, we enhanced the Canada pension plan, which is considered to be the second pillar of Canada's retirement income system. I want to emphasize that CPP offers a number of provisions, like CPP's child-rearing provisions, to support people who had a lower labour force attachment, especially women who took time off to care for their families.

Our plan is working. In fact, since 2015, we have lifted hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty, leading to poverty rates among seniors that are the lowest in our history and among the lowest in the world. All of these measures show that the financial well-being of seniors, including older women, is a priority for the Government of Canada.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are many seniors who are reaching out to me who are struggling to make ends meet. I want to mention two seniors in particular.

Robin is a single senior in my riding living on a fixed income. She currently pays 75% of her income on housing. This is way too much for her to be paying.

Mary, another constituent in my riding, who is widowed and living off of a fixed income, is experiencing health conditions. She has diabetes and renal failure, to be specific, and has been recommended a special diet to minimize the impacts of these health conditions, but she cannot afford to purchase the foods that are being recommended to her by the dieticians so she can live her healthiest, happiest life.

There are some real solutions being put forward by Single Seniors for Tax Fairness, which I believe are tangible and clear ways that the government can move forward to help seniors. One example is to give seniors, upon their death, the right to transfer their—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up. That one minute does go by very fast.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to offer the opportunity to chat in a sidebar with that member at any time on any type of advocacy for seniors in Canada.

The Government of Canada continues to do more to support seniors, including older women. Please allow me to provide members, once again, with a snapshot of what a 76-year-old woman in British Columbia, with a maximum GIS entitlement, could now receive. She could be eligible for more than $2,000 in additional support in 2023, thanks to the grocery rebate, the GIS top-up, the increase for single seniors introduced in 2016 and the new increase to the OAS pension for seniors over 75. That could be an extra $2,000 in her pocket this year.

Carbon Pricing

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to take to my feet, and I have some follow-up questions about the Minister of Environment 's carbon tax scam, which has now been shown by the Parliamentary Budget Officer to take more money out of Canadians' pockets than the rebates put back in.

I have a few questions. I hope the parliamentary secretary does not need to read prepared notes on this one. Does he agree with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who stated that Canadians are going to receive less in rebates than they are going to pay out in carbon tax?

Does he agree with his environment minister, who stated that same fact on a popular TV show when he said that it is true Canadians are going to pay more in carbon tax than they are going to receive back in rebates? Actually, some Canadians are going to pay between $1,500 and $1,800 more in 2030 than they are going to receive in rebates, which is something the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed in his latest report. I would like to hear the answers to that.

We have had this discussion about the carbon tax over the years in this chamber, and when I was a member of the legislative assembly, we also ran against the carbon tax in Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, a lot of people do not have any choice but to drive their own vehicles. They have to drive in rural and remote Saskatchewan on farms. People use their vehicles to get to and from work. There are no other options, as there are in urban Canada. Some of the people I represent see this as a wealth transfer from rural Saskatchewan to urban Saskatchewan.

How do the rural people feel in Nova Scotia? My sister is from Halifax. I know that, in Dartmouth, there are people who need to travel a lot to and from work. What are their options if there is no public transportation? Has the parliamentary secretary heard from his constituents that they are paying a lot more in carbon tax than they are getting back?

He is shaking his head “no”, but I am wondering if there are some people in Nova Scotia who have that feeling. Some members on our side say they have had conversations with people in Nova Scotia who feel the carbon tax has taken more out of their pockets than they are getting back.

We had the conversation around the supply chain and grocery stores. Obviously, when one charges more for fuel, anything that is trucked is going to cost more. Groceries have gone up through both inflation and the carbon tax.

Winters in Saskatchewan get pretty cold, and the same happens in Nova Scotia. Home heating costs have gone up exponentially because of the carbon tax. We know that in 2030, the gas tax, or the carbon tax, is going to be 41¢ a litre in this country. If the Liberals and the NDP do not think that is going to affect the price of anything that is trucked into our country, where it is going to hit the consumer harder than anyone else, they are fooling themselves.

We will continue to fight against the carbon tax scam. Once again, these are a few questions I have, which the parliamentary secretary should be able to answer without reading from his prepared notes from the PMO.

How does the carbon tax affect his people in Nova Scotia? Does he agree with his environment minister, who, after years of saying people are going to receive more in rebates, finally admitted the truth on national TV, that Canadians are going to pay more in the carbon tax scam than they are ever going to get back? Those are a couple of the follow-up questions I have for my hon. colleague.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I think the member probably should have had some prepared comments, because everything he just spouted was basically wrong. There is no carbon tax in Nova Scotia yet and there is no price on pollution in Nova Scotia yet. How can he be speaking to constituents in Halifax and Dartmouth about the impact of something that does not exist? However, I will move along.

It is hard to dot an i and cross a t for someone who says he has been fighting against the carbon tax when, in 2021, he campaigned on it. It was in his platform. I have a copy in my office. He knocked on doors, asking his constituents to vote for him based on what was in that platform. It is hard to cross that t and dot that i.

We know Canadians are facing a really difficult time right now, which is why we will continue to be there for them, investing in them responsibly so they can make it through these tough times and get to the brighter future ahead.

Far be it for the member to agree to this, but climate change is real. It is happening. It is a huge issue, the biggest issue, but it is the biggest opportunity of our lifetime. The latest science warns that to avoid severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly and urgently to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C. I knocked on doors too. Canadians want and expect real action on climate change.

The member can stand and say Canadians do not want a price on pollution, but the Conservatives have lost three elections in a row. What do Canadians want? They want action on climate change. Clearly, the member is not listening to what Canadians are saying when, for three elections in a row, his party has been on that side of the House. It is going to be a fourth. It is going to be a frustrating time for Conservatives to sit on that side for a fourth time because they do not understand that Canadians want real action on climate change.

I will take the word of our environment minister any day of the week over someone who one day says he does not support a price on pollution and in the next election says that his platform says he believes in it. What about the next election? They probably will not believe in it. Who knows? Fifty-five per cent of the grassroots members of the Conservative Party of Canada said climate change is not even real. I am glad to say that Canadians do not agree, and they showed that in the election.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wish the member had read from his prepared notes, because everything he said was untrue.

First, I wish he would find a piece of literature that said I ran on a carbon tax in my riding. That would be interesting to see.

Second, if the member agrees with his environment minister, then he agrees that people are going to pay more in the carbon tax than they are going to get back, because that is what the environment minister said. It is nice that he finally agrees with the Conservatives.

Third, most people understand that we have to do something about climate change, but the hilarious part is the Liberals have never met a target they have made. They are 58th in the world in reducing emissions. That is a fact. That is from the recent COP. The fact that they think this carbon tax scam is actually going to lower emissions is false, and they should stop spreading misinformation to Canadians.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, emissions are coming down. The economy and the environment do go hand in hand. Climate change is a huge issue but a massive opportunity. I will take no lessons from the member and the party across the way.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

(The House adjourned at 7:25 p.m.)