Daniel Blaikie

[Taxation, December 5th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret around here that Canadian households are already strapped in a period of incredible inflation. Today we learned that food prices for next year are projected to go up by another $1,000 a year for the groceries of an average family of four.

Often when the Liberals answer questions about that, they like to get up and talk about things the NDP made them do, such as the dental benefit, the doubling of the GST rebate and the rental benefit. The fact is that in the face of prices that continue to go up, they need to do more. We want a windfall tax and we want the elimination of GST on home heating.

When are the Liberals going to get up and talk about that?

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, apparently they do not teach English at medical school.

The New Democrats have been advocating for a long time to get rid of the GST on home heating. Of course, the Conservatives have instead said that they want to get rid of the carbon tax on home heating. The thing is that the federal carbon tax only applies in provinces that do not have their own provincial carbon pricing system. Therefore, it does cause one to wonder whether the Conservatives are aware of that fact or not.

I wonder if the member could confirm that he knows the federal backstop only operates in about half of the Canadian provinces and if he could name the provinces where the federal backstop is in effect.

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, frankly, I think that all it would take is a bit of political will from the government. It has enough support with other members in the House to try to come to some kind of meaningful emergency solution for people living with disabilities. The government has expressed an intent. We saw that in some previous budgets, not in the numbers, but in the flowery language.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-22 in this Parliament, which is a lot like a bill from the previous Parliament. Again, it is frustrating, because it has no details about the amount the government intends to pay or about the eligibility criteria. It is not talking about doing anything in the meantime, so one is forced to wonder whether the government is serious about delivering a benefit to Canadians living with disabilities, who are in dire need right now, or whether these are just talking points.

The political will outside the Liberal Party is adequate in the House in order to implement a solution. We are waiting on the government to care enough to put something on the table so that we can move ahead.

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, in the last election, Canadians elected 338 MPs. It is true, when I look at the current government, I see a lot of reasons Canadians should not trust it and reasons they may think the government has failed them. I look across the way, and I do not see an adequate replacement. Therefore, I think the 338 of us are stuck trying to figure out how to move forward on certain policy items that are in the best interests of Canadians and that are going to make concrete improvements in their lives. I do not think an election is going to accomplish that.

If people would get serious, drop some of the rhetoric and, regardless of what party we belong to, look for ways we could move forward on good policy issues, that would make a positive difference in the lives of Canadians. I think if we spend more of our time doing that, Canadians would be far better served than by simply electing another government that would have its own problems.

There is inaction on climate change. We would not get anything better from them. There are tax breaks for big corporations. We would not get anything better from them. I could go on, but I will not. I am just going to focus on trying to get things done for people here.

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for her question. I think the solution is staring us in the face: The government should increase OAS for seniors 65 and up.

Seniors 65 and up grapple with the same financial pressure as those 75 and up. We know we are going through very tough economic times. Everyone is affected, so everyone should be entitled to a higher OAS benefit.

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at report stage of Bill C-32 to talk a bit about the bill.

One of the really important measures contained in this bill is the Canada recovery dividend. We have talked a lot in this place about the impact of the pandemic on people and about the need for the government to have spent a considerable sum of money to support people as they contemplated losing their homes during the pandemic, particularly in those early days when the economy all but shut down and people were put out of work and were not sure how they were going to pay their bills. We have also talked a lot in this place about the amount of financial aid that was made available to large financial institutions like banks right at the outset of the pandemic. Indeed, we have talked about some of the knock-on effects in the economy of providing that liquidity, support and de-risking to major financial institutions.

The Canada recovery dividend is a one-time tax assessed on Canada's largest financial institutions for profits of over $1 billion during those early years of the pandemic. It is to be paid over five years and represents a considerable amount of revenue. It is something the New Democrats would have liked to see applied to big box stores, grocery stores and oil and gas companies, which also saw considerable profits during that period. By considerable profits, I do not just mean their normal considerable profits. I mean extra profit above and beyond the normal rate of profit that these companies enjoy.

While we would have liked to see that expanded and while we continue to ask and push for that, there is an important piece of work being done here, which is to assess the Canada recovery dividend, or what in other jurisdictions has been called a windfall tax, on Canada's financial institutions. It has not been done before, to my knowledge, in my own lifetime, so it is a really significant undertaking to go to the large financial institutions, which made a lot of money and benefited significantly from public funding during the pandemic, and say they need to pay their fair share.

Oftentimes, we talk about folks having to pay their fair share. The New Democrats talk about large companies having to pay their fair share. Rarely do we see actual instances of their being required to do it. This is what it looks like when they do it. While going ahead with this with respect to financial institutions is a positive thing, it also demonstrates the extent to which we are not requiring other large profitable companies to pay their fair share, because they are not mentioned in this legislation. They are not going to do it spontaneously. They are not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They are not going to just come around. The banks did not, but they will have to do it because it is legislated. It should be legislated for other sectors as well, but it matters that we are doing it for some sectors.

In addition to that, this legislation would permanently increase the corporate tax rate on those very same companies, including the big banks and life insurance companies, from 15% to 16.5%. That is also significant. That is what it means to make companies pay their fair share, and it is something too infrequently seen in this place. I note to anyone listening at home who has an outpouring of sympathy for these large institutions, although I doubt many are, that this is still far less than the large institutions paid in the year 2000, when they paid a 28% corporate tax rate. Going up to 16.5% for a small cross-section of corporate Canada, albeit a large, powerful and profitable cross-section, is hardly what we mean when we talk about tax fairness. It is at least, for the first time in over 20 years, a step in the right direction.

I am proud to be rising today to support that step in the right direction. I hope it is the first of many. I know if Canadians see fit to elect a New Democratic government, it will be. In the meantime, we will be here fighting the Liberals and dragging them kicking and screaming at every opportunity we get so they do the right thing and ensure that corporate Canada is paying its fair share. Canadians who want a sense of what that looks like need only look at this bill and see the progress we are making.

There are also some things in this bill that have to do with the housing market. Ultimately, they are a drop in the bucket because they are predicated upon the same ethos or philosophy that has been driving the housing market since the Liberal government of the mid-nineties first terminated the national housing strategy, which had a commodity-based and market-based approach to housing.

This is not because we ever had a time when there was not a housing market. There has always been a housing market in Canada, and rightly so, but we used to have a housing market in Canada that was about people being able to buy a family home and sell a home when it came time for them to downsize in retirement and have a bit of a nest egg. That was complemented by a parallel public housing sector that was meaningful, made real investments and built a significant number of units every year. That stopped in the mid-nineties, and we have never really gotten back to that.

Things that the New Democrats support, incidentally, such as a doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, will make a difference for certain families that are already financially well positioned to contemplate buying a house in this market. Fewer and fewer Canadians belong to that category because of the astronomical increase in the cost of housing. Fewer and fewer Canadians belong to that category because of the significant depreciation in their salaries against inflation and the prices of many things. These are things that will make a difference for some Canadians.

Some of these things the New Democrats have advocated for, such as the doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit and cracking down elsewhere, to the extent that the government has done so in this bill. We will see in time how effective that is and what the loopholes mean, but things like house flipping and other things are making it harder for Canadians to compete and get a first home. They are being outbid by people who have made a science of bidding on homes and flipping them and who are backed by access to a lot of capital that most Canadians do not have ready access to. Nevertheless, there are some measures that may help certain Canadians.

That is fine, but there is a lot more work to do to combat the idea that houses are commercial assets as opposed to homes. Significant government investments will be required to make that case and take the framework on so that we are building more social housing units for which rent is geared to income. Also, not unlike what I was just talking about with regard to assessing real taxes on the biggest corporate players in Canada, there is a lot of work to do in changing the regulatory environment so that big real estate investment trusts and other large corporate players in the housing market, which are pushing up prices and evicting low-income tenants, do not have a free hand to do that in the way they have.

That is what it will ultimately take for us to live in a country that has made a real decision about its values in respect of housing so that housing is not a simple market with a good like any other good in the market, but is a right for Canadian citizens. We have to design our housing market, including using non-market tools, to ensure that everybody has access to housing. This bill does not get us there, but it does tinker at the edges in ways that will be helpful for some people.

I want to talk a bit about what is not in the bill. The New Democrats are quite prepared to support this bill on the basis of some of the things that are significant and some of the things that tinker at the edges, albeit in helpful ways as opposed to harmful ways, but there is a lot that is not in the bill. I think particularly of employment insurance reform as the government begins to talk about a recession. We do not see any clues in this bill, just as we did not see any in the fall economic statement, about where the government is going on certain key policy decisions that have been made to get our employment insurance system up to where it needs to be.

I would note, while I have the opportunity, that one thing the government has decided to do, which we do not see in this bill but is on the books, is attribute $25 billion of debt, a big number, to the employment insurance account for the CERB and CRB payments that were made under the auspices of Service Canada, as opposed to the CRA. I have to say that whatever the government has in store for EI modernization clearly cannot involve any funding, because a $25-billion debt on the EI account means that we are going see maximum premium increases for the next seven years, with all of that money paying down CERB debt that should not be on the EI account. That was a general expense by the government in the context of a global emergency, and it should not be on the on the EI account. I am happy to talk more about that during questions and answers.

[Telecommunications Act, December 1st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, at the very least there has to be some kind of accounting for and public disclosure of the number of orders the government is making under these new powers. That is just one example, a very minimum reporting threshold.

The idea that any number of these orders could be made and Canadians would not even know they have been made or how many have been made is not acceptable. There has to be some reporting of the extent to which these powers are used, or there will be no factual basis upon which to evaluate whether the powers have been appropriate or adequate, or whether they need to change in the future.

[Telecommunications Act, December 1st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I think that type of coincidence is always a concern. We have mechanisms in place to launch investigations when warranted. I would encourage my colleague to submit his evidence to the authorities who could look into this, because that is the most appropriate way to ensure that the wrongdoing that the member mentioned in his comments has not taken place.

[Telecommunications Act, December 1st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, there are only so many things that can be fixed with legislation. Legislation is a necessary component of the solution, but it is not sufficient on its own. We see that in many areas. Despite the fact that we have made good laws in this place against certain kinds of crime, nevertheless, those kinds of crimes persist, so of course enforcement is an important part of that question and requires the attention of and resources from government. When those resources are not made available, it matters very little the kinds of laws we pass in this place, because the other necessary component is on the enforcement side.

I share the member's concern for proper enforcement of the laws we pass in this place.

[Telecommunications Act, December 1st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, with thanks to the chamber, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-26.

Cybersecurity is a topic that is very much on the minds of many Canadians. It is something that many of us have had experience with in our personal lives, or we know somebody who has. Certainly, as MPs, we hear from folks who have fallen prey to various kinds of cyber-attacks online. We know it is a burgeoning criminal industry to take advantage of people online, grab their information and impersonate their identities. Canadians deserve to be protected from this kind of crime.

We also heard about the impact that cybersecurity attacks have had on our commercial industries. One of the examples that stands out in my mind of particular concern was the 2017 cyber-attack on Equifax, where the personal and financial information of thousands of Canadians was obtained illegally. It is an obvious concern for folks when they find out that a company they trusted with their personal information has been subject to this kind of attack.

We also know that our government has not been immune from these kinds of attacks. Hospitals and Global Affairs Canada have been the object of successful cyber-attacks. Earlier this fall, the House of Commons had a cyber-attack. MPs were warned about changing their email passwords for fear of information in their work accounts being exposed to outside eyes and ears that would find out what was going on in those accounts.

There is no question that it is a real issue. There is also no question, when we talk to experts on the file, that Canada is a laggard in respect to cybersecurity. There have been many debates in this place about the role of Huawei, for instance, in our 5G infrastructure. The government did finally take a decision on Huawei, I think the right decision, although late in the game with respect to our other Five Eyes allies. The idea with this legislation is that the government needs more legal authority in order to implement that decision. Of course, there are a number of ways it can do that.

The bill, as it stands, is not ready to go, but New Democrats are happy to send it to committee where we can hear from experts and try to improve it. When I say it is not ready to go, in my view, it is that for as long as it took for the government to reach a decision on Huawei, it clearly was not doing any work alongside its deliberations on Huawei to prepare for banning it. This legislation would largely give a broad, sweeping power to the Minister of Industry to decide later what exactly the government will have to do in order to ban Huawei and respond to other kinds of cyber-threats.

There is not a lot of detail in the legislation, and that is something we have seen from the government on other fronts. We have seen it on unrelated items, like the Canada disability benefit. It drafted a bill that had no content on the program. The attitude is “trust us and we will get it right later”. However, we also see a litany of problems with the way the government manages its business, whether we go all the way back to the SNC-Lavalin affair and the question of deferred prosecution agreements or other ethical issues that have come up in the context of this government.

I think Canadians are right to have a certain distrust of the government. The answer lies in mechanisms that impose accountability on the government, and those are very clearly absent from this legislation. In fact, not only are they absent from the legislation but the government also very explicitly exempts itself from some of the current types of accountability that do exist.

For instance, it exempts itself from the Statutory Instruments Act, which would make it possible for the parliamentary regulations committee to review orders that the minister may issue under the new authority granted to him in this act.

Therefore, not only would there be no new accountability measures commensurate with the new powers the government would be giving itself, but it would also be exempting itself from some of the accountability mechanisms already there. The government is also explicitly letting Canadians know its intention in the legislation to give itself the legal authority to keep those orders secret. Therefore, we have to contemplate the idea that there will be a whole branch of secret orders and laws that govern the telecommunications industry that Canadians will not know about, and the telecommunications companies may not have an adequate awareness of them.

Where I would like to go with this is to talk a bit more broadly about the Internet and about privacy rights on the Internet. When the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement was signed, there was a number of provisions in that agreement that went too far in shoring up the rights of companies to keep their algorithms secret, for instance. There are other kinds of IP protections, or protections that are sold as IP but really mean that it is harder to get a transparent accounting of how companies operate on the Internet and of the artificial intelligence they use to navigate the Internet.

There is a way of dealing with the Internet that prioritizes secrecy for commercial purposes, but that same secrecy also breeds more opportunity for malignant actors on the web to go about their business and not have to worry they will have to expose what it is they are doing. Whereas, if we look to the European Union as another model, for privacy and conducting business on the Internet, there are a lot more robust protections there for the private information of consumers on the Internet, and there are a lot more reporting requirements for actors on the Internet.

The problem with the bill as it is written here is that it would be trying to fight secrecy with secrecy. When firefighters show up to a house that is on fire, they do not usually show up with a flamethrower. They show up with something else that can fight the fire instead of accelerating it.

I do not think Canadians, who are concerned about malignant actors on the Internet and the ways that they are able to exploit the dark corners of the Internet and the back doors of software, also think that the way to fight that is to let the government do it in secret without any reporting. Canadians are not thinking that, with less information available about actors within the digital space or government actions against cybersecurity threats, they are better off if they do not know what the actors on the Internet are doing, and they do not know what the government is doing about it.

The problem with the bill as written is that it would double down on the approach that we saw in CUSMA. It was about privacy for actors on the Internet and privacy for the government in how it deals with it. Instead, it could take a more open-source approach to say that the way forward on the Internet has to be that digital actors have to be upfront about the kind of business they are conducting on the Internet, the ways they do it and the algorithms they use. Governments, likewise, could then be pretty transparent about how they would deal with people who were non-compliant or who were breaking the rules.

New Democrats are concerned to see, along those broad lines, an approach to the Internet that says transparency and accountability, both for private actors and for public actors, is the way forward. Digital consumers deserve to have this information at their fingertips, so they understand what people are going to be doing with the information they enter on their computer, whether that is to purchase a book, get a loan or whatever kind of business they are doing on the Internet. They should have more rights to know how that information is handled, and the role of the government in keeping that information secure, rather than being told not to worry about it, because commercial interests have their best interest at heart, the government has their best interest at heart, and they do not need to know what is going on.

That is why the bill should go to committee, to be sure, because Canada does need its government to have the authority to implement the decision on Huawei and to do better in respect of cybersecurity. There is a lot of good work for committee members to do there, and a lot of amendments that ought to be made to the bill in order for it to pass in subsequent readings.