House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2025, with 37% of the vote.
Financial Institutions October 23rd, 2024
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. government has fined TD Bank over $3 billion after it plead guilty to money laundering charges. This case raises serious questions about federal oversight of Canadian banks and undermines our global reputation. Working Canadians have to play by the rules, but when banking executives put profits above the law, the government looks the other way.
What have the Liberals done to address the repeated criminal actions of TD Bank?
The Economy October 11th, 2024
Mr. Speaker, a new report paints a disturbing picture of economic injustice in Canada. Income inequality has hit the highest level ever recorded, and the bottom 40% of Canadians hold less than 3% of Canada's wealth. The Liberals let this happen, caving to wealthy CEOs jacking up grocery prices and rent, while the Conservatives want to cut programs like the NDP's pharmacare and dental care that will put more money in people's pockets.
Why are the Liberals, like Conservatives, catering to the ultrarich while working families in Canada are falling behind?
Recognition of Business Improvement Areas October 11th, 2024
Mr. Speaker, as the NDP finance critic, I know that small and medium-sized businesses are the real engine of our economy. From coast to coast, these enterprises employ millions of Canadians and contribute essential goods, services and benefits to every community in our nation. They are responsible for 50% of Canada's GDP, employ 65% of all workers and create the majority of new jobs every year. However, we know that many businesses are struggling with high rents, rising costs and difficulty retaining employees. When individuals and families have to tighten their belts, local businesses suffer as well.
This week, I met with representatives of Canada's business improvement associations. These wonderful organizations promote local businesses and play active roles in all kinds of community activities.
I want to acknowledge two superb BIAs in Vancouver Kingsway: the Collingwood BIA, led by Angela Evans, and the Victoria Drive BIA, chaired by Christopher Chung. Their hard work not only creates prosperity, but brings us all closer together.
Privilege October 9th, 2024
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague said that corruption is not a feature of this place generally but of the Liberal Party. I was in the house when the Harper government, the Conservative government, was found in contempt twice for exactly the type of issue that is before the House being debated, which is refusing to produce documents it had been ordered to produce by the House. It concerned Afghan detainees and it also related to the price of crime bills.
Can the member tell me, was it corruption in the Conservative Party that led to the finding of contempt in this Parliament when the Conservatives refused to hand over documents, or is that just ancient history that does not have anything to do with today?
Privilege October 2nd, 2024
Madam Speaker, throughout this debate, the Conservatives continually do not want any focus on their last time in government, which just ended in 2015. They were the government before this one.
What happened in that government? Twice the Conservatives were found in contempt of Parliament, for the first time in history. They had a multi-billion-dollar loss of taxpayer dollars in the Phoenix pay scandal. Former cabinet minister Tony Clement directed a $50-million slush fund, funnelling millions to his Muskoka riding, including a $100,000 gazebo, only to leave the House after a sexting extortion scandal. They shovelled hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars to Conservative ridings after the 2008 recession, often displaying them on Conservative Party logo cheques. The PM's chief of staff paid for Senator Mike Duffy's legal fees, and there were four Conservative senators who had to be suspended without pay.
My question is this: Is it common sense for Canadians to re-elect a party with such a horrible record of corruption and misuse of taxpayer dollars? Is it common sense to just forget about that?
Privilege October 2nd, 2024
Mr. Speaker, I note that the motion under debate has to do with the failure of government to produce documents, and I share my colleague's commitment to accountability and the doctrine that Parliament is supreme.
I was in the House in 2011 when Speaker Milliken found the Conservative government in contempt of Parliament for refusing to hand over documents, just as this motion is calling for. The documents would have revealed to Parliament the costs of corporate tax cuts, criminal justice measures and the F-35 program.
The last Conservative government refused to produce documents when Parliament, through a majority vote, demanded them. On the principle that the best indication of future performance is past behaviour, would a future Conservative government commit to being different from the last Conservative government?
Committees of the House September 25th, 2024
Madam Speaker, the federal government's 2024-25 budget included an important reform to the taxation of capital gains. Changing the way we tax capital gains is something that has been called for by progressive voices in this country for decades.
Capital gains occur when an asset is sold for more than it costs to acquire and maintain. However, there are a number of very important exceptions to this rule, including Canadians' principal residences and other types of assets.
Capital gains are generally heavily concentrated among high-income Canadians, more so than any other form of income. Making matters worse, they benefit from lucrative tax preferences. Until this year and this change, recipients only had to declare half their capital gains on their income tax, which is the so-called inclusion rate of 50%, and the other half was entirely tax-free. Therefore, if a person bought an asset for half a million dollars and sold it for a million dollars, half of that $500,000 profit was completely tax-free. This could be a second home, a building or stocks.
In contrast, other forms of income, such as wages and salaries, must be fully reported on a tax return. I think Canadians are well aware of that. In other words, the inclusion rate for salaries and wages is 100%. Teachers, waitresses, firefighters, truck drivers, plumbers, office workers and cleaners have to declare and pay tax on 100% of their income, as does pretty much every person who goes to work every day and has a job. However, people who are trading stocks, selling secondary residences or selling large assets do not. They only have to declare half of their profit, and the other half goes in their pocket tax-free.
The federal budget announced a change in the capital gains inclusion rate. As of June 24 of this year, it rose to 66.7% for capital gains inclusion declared by corporations. This means that, instead of sheltering 50% of their profits, corporations can now only shelter one-third. However, they still get to shelter one-third of their profits.
The inclusion rate for individuals remains at 50%, the way it has always been for many decades, for all capital gains under $250,000. It will be increased to 66.7% for any capital gains declared above $250,000 in a single year. In other words, half of the capital gains for an individual is still tax-free under $250,000, and a third of their capital gains above $250,000 is still tax-free. Therefore, the tax benefit to capital gains in this country is still lucrative, just modestly less so.
Now, the number of individuals directly affected by this change is very small. Canada Revenue Agency data indicates that only about 0.1% of tax filers, which is about 40,000 people in this country, report over $250,000 of capital gains per year. The proportion of Canadians who would declare over $250,000 in capital gains in any year in their lives is also very small.
While the number of Canadians significantly affected by this change is small, these Canadians are mighty. This reform, which has been advocated for many years by tax specialist and equality advocates, as I said, will primarily have an impact on the richest Canadians. They are very powerful, as are their allies and advisers in the financial sector. Therefore, this new policy is being aggressively resisted by an alliance of wealthy Canadians, financial advisers and Conservatives.
The Conservative leader has promised to reverse these capital gains tax reforms, and he is trying to start a broader revolt against taxes in general and the public programs they pay for. The campaign against capital gains tax reform has relied on scare tactics and outright misinformation about who will be affected, how much extra they will pay and even why capital gains are taxed at all. In fact, the reason we are here tonight is that the Conservatives have decided to move a motion with some 360 recommendations. These were made to the finance committee before the last budget, the one that was introduced here in April. These come from recommendations that were made in February as a way to stall the introduction of a ways and means motion that would pave the way for these capital gains inclusion changes. That is why we are here tonight: The Conservatives are stalling tax fairness.
New Democrats believe, as the Carter commission in the 1960s found, that a buck is a buck is a buck, and that is how taxes should work. It should not matter whether one gets their income in the form of a dividend or a capital gain, or through their hard work in a salary or wage; it should be taxed the same. That is the principle that came out of the royal commission in the 1960s.
However, the Conservatives are doing the bidding of the wealthiest people in this country, people who have capital gains over $250,000. They do not want that money to be taxed the same way that wages are.
Committees of the House September 25th, 2024
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the number one issue for his constituents being affordability. That is the same issue I have heard about from constituents in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway. We come from the same province.
The NDP has addressed that in a number of ways. One was by bringing in dental care for nine million people so it would no longer be the case that they spend thousands of dollars on dental care out of their pockets. We also brought in pharmacare, and diabetes medication. I have talked to many people who have to spend thousands of dollars every year on diabetes medications and devices.
Can the member explain to us, if he is truly concerned about affordability, why he and his party voted against those two measures, which take thousands of dollars of expenses off some of the lowest-income Canadians and would obviously ease their affordability issues? Why did he oppose that?
Committees of the House September 23rd, 2024
Madam Speaker, it is most interesting that it was Conservatives in Canada who brought in the first carbon tax. It was Conservatives in Alberta and then Conservatives in British Columbia who introduced the price on carbon in this country. The Conservatives here campaigned on it federally in 2019, but they have amnesia.
My question is about the cost of not dealing with the climate crisis. It is true that the carbon tax is a pricing mechanism that is supposed to lead to people reducing their carbon. If we did not have that, we would have more carbon emissions. Here is the cost. The Canadian Climate Institute's report says that by 2030, Canada could face annual losses to real GDP of $35 billion, and that depending on whether or not we get our emissions act together, we could be looking at $78 billion to $101 billion annually by 2050 and $391 billion to $865 billion by 2100.
What is the cost to the Canadian economy of failing to get our carbon emissions down? Tell me what that is.
Committees of the House September 23rd, 2024
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech and for all the intelligence, wisdom and experience he brings from the agricultural sector. I want to ask him about the cost of the climate crisis. The Conservatives seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing. There is an old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
What is the cost to Canada's agricultural community of failing to deal with the climate crisis?