Debates of Oct. 30th, 2024

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 66, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 6, 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

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government's reckless spending and mismanagement of the national economy are causing inflation. Now, on top of that, it wants to tax this inflation.

This is how it works. Somebody buys a capital property, say, a commercial warehouse for their business, and over time, the value goes up. When they sell that property, that capital asset, there is a tax to pay on that capital gain, and so it is really a tax on inflation. It has always been deemed to be unfair, but Canada made the compromise by saying, “Well, we will put only half that capital gain into a person's income and then tax it at their marginal tax rate.” Is it fair? No, but it has been accepted.

The current government, on account of its incompetence, does not even know how to balance the budget in good times, in times of full employment, as in the first four years of the Liberals' administration, from 2015 to 2019. The economy was good, there were good government revenues and low interest rates, but even then, it could not balance the budget. The Liberals were lulled into a sense of complacency because of low interest rates, and it was spending till the cows came home. Well, eventually the cows did come home, in March 2020 with the pandemic, and all hell broke loose. There was deficit spending, borrowing, quantitative easing like we have never seen before in Canadian history and, very predictably, inflation followed. There were too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. The law of supply and demand, like the law of gravity, never changes.

The middle class, whom this government had promised to help, has suffered on account of this inflation. We can look at the cost of housing, groceries and transportation. What does the socialist government do? It attacks the wealthy, of course, which is what the Liberals always like to do. The Minister of Finance introduced a capital gains tax increase, said the Liberals were asking the wealthiest 0.13% to pay just a bit more. Now many Canadians are finding out, to their surprise, that they are part of this elite group of Canada's wealthiest.

Hard-working Karen in my riding runs her retail store very successfully. She bought her own commercial strata unit to save for her retirement. If she sells it for half a million dollars more than she bought it for, and in these inflationary times that is completely realistic, with the new rules, the capital gains inclusion rules, her tax bill will be $40,000 higher than it would have been under the old rules in Canada for many years.

Will the Liberals keep their promise, keep the Minister of Finance's promise, that only the top 0.13% of income earners will be taxed, and will they leave ordinary, hard-working entrepreneurs like Karen alone?

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

Madam Speaker, to start, before I expand on it, I will make very clear that as of June 25, 2024, the capital gains inclusion rate increased from one-half to two-thirds on capital gains realized annually above $250,000 by individuals and on capital gains realized by corporations and most types of trusts. We are talking about a quarter of a million dollars annually. It does not surprise me that the Conservative Party does not recognize the value of that and does not expect a bit more from those who have that sort of profit, but it is not appropriate to say it is not fair.

When the Liberals came back in 2015, we put a special tax on the wealthiest 1% in Canada, and the Conservatives opposed that. At the end of the day, we have supported Canada's middle class in a very tangible and real way. I would go back to the time we decreased taxes for Canada's middle class. Again, the Conservatives voted against that. We brought in programs to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it, and we have looked at ways we can support others.

The member makes reference to inflation, but Canada, in comparison to virtually every other industrialized country, has done exceptionally well there. It does not mean that we sit back. We have not done that. We have recognized that we need to support Canadians, even though our economy, in many ways, is doing better than those of other countries around the world. We have done that through things such as the grocery rebate.

Members of the Conservative caucus often reference seniors. We have supported seniors in very tangible ways, whether with the substantial increase to the GIS a number of years ago or with an increase for those 75 and over. In many ways, the government has been there to support Canadians, and we will continue to look for ways to do that.

With a bigger, holistic approach when dealing with the economy, we have now seen interest rates drop in Canada, the first of the G7 countries. Inflation rates are now under control. I suggest the member take a look at the world environment, whether during the economic slowdown or the pandemic. No country was exempt from them. We all had to play a role. The Government of Canada, working with Canadians and other jurisdictions, like the provinces, the territories and indigenous leaders, has been able to minimize the negative impacts of what has been happening around the world. Yes, there are some areas where we need to increase revenue, but this is a fair way of doing it.

The Liberals obviously disagree with the Conservatives, but when we first came out with the announcement, the Conservatives sat on their hands and said nothing. It took them a while to decide on the position they were going to take. As it took them a while to adopt their position, I suggest they go back to the drawing board on it.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have three comments in response.

First, the parliamentary secretary said that a capital gain is a profit. It is not really a profit; it is inflation. Profit is when someone works hard and earns an income based on what they are selling. This is just inflation. If a person had to buy another asset, it would cost that much more, so it is not profit at all.

Second, he said that compared to other countries, Canada is doing pretty good. Our real estate inflation is way worse than it is in the United States.

Third, our GDP per capita, which is the most reliable measure of national wealth, lags substantially behind that of the United States. One of the reasons is that we are sending investment dollars to the U.S. instead of keeping them here in Canada. Increasing the capital gains tax does not help that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of very quick facts. Only 0.13% of Canadians with an average income of $1.42 million are expected to pay more tax on their capital gains in any given year. Also, the current 50% inclusion rate can lead to unfair circumstances, where a millionaire can pay a lower marginal rate on capital gains than a nurse pays on salary.

People need to reflect on that. If my memory serves me correctly, Brian Mulroney had a higher percentage than what we are proposing. The member might want to fact-check that. I am relying purely on my memory.

Government Accountability

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address a question. On September 9 of this year, before Parliament came back in session, the Liberal Party of Canada, not the Government of Canada, asked Mark “carbon tax” Carney to join the Liberals as a special economic adviser to advise on the economics of the country. Again, this is not the Government of Canada, but the Liberal Party of Canada, and that is to avoid the conflict of interest rules that are incumbent upon officers that serve the government. He is a special adviser for a special new task force on economic growth, a task force of one person. He is doing this himself. He is not talking to anybody else. My colleagues have called for an examination of this and for the lobbying commissioner to look into whether this is a conflict of interest and how it should be properly dealt with in the House of Commons.

Who is Mark “carbon tax” Carney? Well, amongst other roles in which he serves a lot of rich people around the world, he is the chairman of Brookfield Asset Management here in Canada. Brookfield is a very large corporation. It invests in all kinds of credit and equity around the world, and it has assets under management of $1 trillion U.S., so it is a significant fund. That is a little less than half of Canada's GDP in one fund, which Mark Carney helps oversee. I do not begrudge the fact that he has done well heading up a corporation like that. He has never actually worked there, but being a chairman, he is rewarded. How does Mark Carney get rewarded? He gets rewarded with deferred stock units and other options to participate in the financial success of Brookfield Asset Management.

Now, let us say there are $1 trillion of assets under management. Usually, these types of funds get paid as a percentage of the assets they hold under management. It can be as high as 2%, but let us say it is 1%. That is $10 billion a year in compensation that goes towards the managers of Brookfield Asset Management. I can be corrected on that number at some point in time, if someone would like.

On September 17, Brookfield proposed to lead a new $50-billion fund focused on Canadian assets, leading with $10 billion, not from a pension fund, but from the Government of Canada. This is not the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, but the Government of Canada. This is $10 billion from a broke government that actually does not have any money, but is $50 billion more in deficit this year, plus another $40 billion that it is proposing from pension funds.

Where is it getting that notion? It is getting that notion because back in the spring, in April, the finance minister had a different former Bank of Canada governor look into how we need to address the productivity crisis that is happening in Canada and find out why pensions are not investing in Canadian business. That is because, quite frankly, it is a broken financial system under the government. It has broken the regulatory environment. CPPIB, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, in fact only has 12% of its assets invested in Canada. The rest is offshore. It does not invest in Canada. Investment funds are now flowing outside this country.

Let us look at that conflict of interest. After we have been debating in the House of Commons for how many weeks the conflicts of interest involved in SDTC, how can the Liberals continue on this path to have another Liberal insider try to take some more funds from Canadians and not face the conflict of interest regulations?

You are protecting your friends. Have you learned nothing? Will you actually accept that this should be a conflict of interest?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I hope I am not being called into question by the hon. member.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to get to the question right away, but first I want to wish people a happy Diwali. Diwali is celebrated in every region of the country. It is a part of our Canadian heritage. It is about good over evil, light over darkness, knowledge versus ignorance. I think Canadians, whatever their background, should get out there and celebrate Diwali.

Having said that, I appreciate the member's comments. Obviously, I do not agree with the member's comments, because what he has been tasked with doing is what I classify as a character assassination, where a Conservative member goes out of their way to take down an individual. Often we see it of ministers. Now we even see it of potential future politicians. Mark Carney has, in fact, contributed as a public servant in many ways, not only here in Canada but also in the U.K. As governor of the Bank of Canada, he was at the forefront of public policy.

I find it very disturbing when Conservatives are so focused on tearing people down without legitimate justification. The equivalent would be my taking four minutes to be critical of Jenni Byrne, for example. Jenni Byrne is very cozy with the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative caucus. She is a lobbyist. One of the firms her company lobbies for is Loblaw. Canadians are concerned about food inflation and that Loblaw might have been gouging consumers, yet that individual is in the inner circle of the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. I would suggest she is probably closer to the leader, in different ways, than most Conservative members of Parliament. She carries a great deal of influence. As I said, I do not want to spend my full four minutes talking about that.

Rather, I want to talk about some things we have witnessed over the last number of years, as there have been challenges in the economy. We look to individuals like Tiff Macklem, the current Governor of the Bank of Canada, the same governor the leader of the Conservative Party says we should be firing and the same governor who dismisses him completely. Because of that leadership and the administration of public policy, from Ottawa and other jurisdictions, today we have an inflation rate of less than 2%. We are on target. Interest rates are going down. I realize that goes against what the Conservatives want to do, which is to assassinate characters. Mr. Macklem is probably one of those individuals. At one point, the Conservative leader was critical of him. He has backed off a bit, to his credit.

We have a lot of people who have done so much for our country. We should—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, no character assassination was intended here.

What we are trying to do is get accountability for government, which does not exist with the government right now. We have made that quite clear over the last handful of weeks as the green slush fund needs to present its documents in regard to conflicts of interest and investments in insiders' companies. That needs to be disclosed to Canadians. We want to make sure there is accountability.

Likewise, Mark "carbon tax" Carney needs to be accountable to the government. He has to make sure his interests are disclosed very clearly and that he does not get paid for presenting something to the government that will put a lot of dollars into his own pockets and the pockets of his companies. All we are asking for is accountability and for the lobbying commissioner to take a good look at this. We are also asking the government when it is going to learn its lessons as far as corruption goes, and stop dealing on an insider basis and funnelling Canadian taxpayer dollars to its friends.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure members noticed that the member indicated it is not about character assassination and then right away went into “carbon tax Carney”. That is the slogan, because the Conservatives are very good at creating slogans. I do not know whether they use AI or what they do to come up with their slogans, but at the end of the day, all one needs to do is read the member's comments that he has put on the record or the many comments that his colleagues have put on the record.

The character assassination is not only of this particular individual, who does not sit in the chamber. There is also a great deal of focus even on the Prime Minister. I knew that the Conservatives started character assassination with the leader of the Liberal Party even before he was Prime Minister. Even before he was actually the leader of the Liberal Party, they were going after his character in a very negative way. They have spent millions—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill has the floor.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, the Prime Minister appointed Mr. Carney to be his senior economic adviser, and in that role, Mr. Carney would have unfettered access, in theory, to confidential and sensitive economic information, and he would also have unfettered access to people who make policy decisions on economic policy.

The finance minister has on multiple occasions said that Mr. Carney is a very close friend of hers. In fact he is one of her children's godparents. I do not believe she has disclosed him as a close friend, which is all fine in theory, except for the fact that Mr. Carney has, as my colleague has said, multiple business interests that relate to the types of policies that the finance minister or the Prime Minister would be implementing. Now, in his new role, he is ostensibly going to be implementing or suggesting policy himself.

Therefore, clearly this is a matter for the lobbyist commissioner to look at, and I want to say why. First of all, example one is a fact: Right after Mr. Carney was appointed in the role, The Logic reported that Brookfield, the company that he chairs, had started talks with the federal government and the Canada Pension Plan fund to back a new multi-billion dollar fund that Brookfield is raising, and that Brookfield was seeking 10 billion tax dollars from the federal government for the fund. Mr. Carney is the chair of the board. Now he is sitting with power and access to be able to determine the federal budget and economic policy, and his company is asking for $10 billion. That is problem one.

Problem two is that Mr. Carney also sits on the board of Stripe, a payment service. The federal government just struck a deal with Visa and Mastercard to lower payment processing fees, but Mr. Carney's company, Stripe, has elected not to pass that savings along to small businesses, but hoard it for itself. This begs the question of why the federal government did not require Stripe to do this, as would be done in other jurisdictions. Mr. Carney is on the board. He has access to this exact policy. His purview and his access to the finance minister would give him purview to the policy.

Example number three is a very close relationship with the Telesat CEO, Dan Goldberg. Telesat was just given $6 billion by the federal government, shortly after Mr. Carney's appointment.

As another example, overseas there is actually a company admitting that Mr. Carney lobbies the government for the company's joint business ventures on behalf of Brookfield. The company is HomeServe. The CEO, Richard Harpin, in the Telegraph is reported as saying, “Mark is working on our behalf in Government and he did have a meeting on this with Rachel Reeves”, a U.K. senior economic policy person. “It was covering some other issues and the role of Brookfield as a trillion-dollar investor in the U.K. And so it wasn't just this issue,” the subsidies it was looking for, “but he did mention it.” Mr. Harpin also said, “We want to make sure that there's some money allocated to this [from the federal government], that we've got a clear direction of travel when the Budget comes out on Oct 30.”

Here is the point: There is a man who is beholden to multiple corporations who is now directly advising the finance minister, the Prime Minister and the entire governing party on economic policy, and that is wrong. It is not character assassination to say it is wrong. It is fundamentally wrong. I would say it is a character flaw of the man to not see that. I am sure he believes that is altruistic, but it is not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Yes, Madam Speaker, it is a continuation. I will give an example to the member opposite. Let us imagine what we should actually do. The Conservative leader came out yesterday and said he has a brand new, shiny policy. He is going to get rid of the GST on any homes that are being built, as long as they are under $1 million.

Now, I wonder where he got that idea from. Did he get it from some individuals who might be in a conflict? He possibly did. Maybe we should get the Ethics Commissioner or the Commissioner of Lobbying to take a look at where that idea originated from. I do not know where it came from. Maybe Canadians should know. Can the member clearly indicate and provide assurances that there is no one who would have provided him that advice who would have been in any form of a conflict whatsoever?

I remember when today's Deputy Prime Minister actually came and met with the Liberal caucus, while we were a third party inside the chamber. She talked about Canada's middle class and provided us information and thinking in terms of how we could ultimately enhance and support it. That was of great value. I would like to think that caucuses invite people with different levels of expertise to their meetings. Some might use the expert as an adviser, whether the Prime Minister, another minister or even me, to try to enhance the knowledge on an important issue.

There is no need to assassinate the character just because they do not like that particular individual or they believe that individual might be in a conflict position if this star is here and that star is there. We can put on our tin hat, and this is what we think. After all, even though that person is not in the cabinet or a member of caucus, it could be inappropriate. Therefore, they want to try to get some news attention on it and, by the way, come up with a slogan. They have one.

There are people in Canada who have a lot to offer. People do not have to be an elected official in order to be able to come to the table and offer good advice. Whether they are a member of Parliament who just has an interest in a topic area, a cabinet minister specializing in one policy area or the Prime Minister of Canada, I would like to think that we have an open mind to those individuals who have a certain level of expertise. I would argue that the Deputy Prime Minister today has more knowledge and ability to understand the issues of Canada's middle class than any other individual that I am aware of. Moreover, I have been aware of quite a few people over the years. She knows her stuff; that is why, at the end of the day, we see a healthier middle class in comparison with other countries. That is one of the reasons I was pleased to see the Deputy Prime Minister make a presentation to the national Liberal caucus at a time when we were in third party status; she could help us look at ways in which we could build sound public policy.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition put a great piece of policy forward this week. I am so glad my colleague mentioned it, and I hope he will support it. The policy is to axe the GST on homebuilding, and it was developed by anti-poverty advocates. These are people who are trying to fight for Canadians to have a break; in contrast, Mr. Carney is advising the Liberal Party in order to get rich himself. That is the difference. He is advocating for corporate interests whereas the Leader of the Opposition's policy was developed without any sort of ethical issue. Of course, I can absolutely say that. Mr. Carney, on the other hand, has a whole host of ethical issues.

The question is simple. This needs to be investigated by the lobbying commissioner. My colleague should have some shame in holding the bag on such a clear violation of, probably, the lobbying rules and other things. Mr. Carney should have some shame too. If he is such an esteemed individual, he should not be putting himself in this situation. Frankly, he should not be putting his boards up to this type of reputational risk. Seriously, it is really bad governance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to have to call the member. She just finished saying that, of course, the leader of the Conservative Party was advised on the policy he announced yesterday by anti-poverty advocates. We can think about that for a moment. How many homeless Canadians are going to benefit by purchasing a brand new house next year? How many anti-poverty advocates are really endorsing this particular announcement that people should not have to pay GST if they are going to spend $900,000 on a brand new house? By the way, the Conservatives would also be deleting all the other housing programs that are, in fact, supporting non-profit housing. It does not make any sense.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

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

(The House adjourned at 7:52 p.m.)