Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 157
View Glenn Thibeault Profile
Ind. (ON)
View Glenn Thibeault Profile
2013-06-13 10:16 [p.18265]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present three petitions, and I will be brief on each.
The first petition is signed by hundreds of constituents of my great city of Sudbury. The petitioners wish to protect consumers from gas-price gouging. They would like the Minister of Industry to act on this petition. They are calling for justice for one of my constituents, Paul Temelini, who has been fighting a case for 30 years.
View Glenn Thibeault Profile
Ind. (ON)
View Glenn Thibeault Profile
2013-06-12 16:01 [p.18187]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to present petitions signed by hundreds of members of my great riding of Sudbury, who are asking the government to protect consumers from gas price gouging. The cost of gasoline is continuing to fluctuate erratically. Prices are prone to wide variations between communities and sharp spikes in anticipation of higher demand. The petitioners want the federal government to take action to ensure that gas prices are fair and competitive, despite the fact that there have been numerous complaints from citizens and watchdogs.
The undersigned are calling on the Minister of Industry to present legislation on behalf of the government to protect consumers from price gouging by gasoline retailers.
View Bruce Hyer Profile
GP (ON)
View Bruce Hyer Profile
2013-05-24 12:05 [p.16984]
Mr. Speaker, our Canadian economy loses $2.3 billion every year and thousands of jobs due to Canada's uncompetitive airline ticket prices. More and more Canadians are crossing the border for lower American airfares. Unlike the U.S.A., the Conservative government profits from exorbitant airport rents and high security fees on top of various other taxes.
When will the Conservatives stop overtaxing airports and killing our Canadian airline and tourism industries?
View Steven Fletcher Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, Canada works on a user-pay system. The people who use our airports pay for the use of the airports. There is a dividend that the federal government receives from airports each year and that is because the airports lease the land from the federal government.
This is very different than the U.S. model, where U.S. airports are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. We will not have the taxpayer subsidize air travel. People who use air travel will pay for their trips.
View Randy Kamp Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of international trade has a keen interest in this bill, so with your consent I would like to share my time with the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.
I am pleased to support Bill S-13, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. This bill originated in the other place and the Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans studied the bill between November 8, 2012 and March 5, 2013. During the study, the Senate committee heard testimony from officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Oceans and Environmental Law Division of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, and others as well.
The purpose of Bill S-13 is to enable Canada to ratify the international agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
On March 7, after examining the bill and hearing from witnesses, our colleagues in the other place passed the act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
The port state measures agreement negotiations focused on illegal fishing and transshipping on the high seas, what we call IUU fishing or illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. IUU fishing is an issue of grave concern. The agreement deals with the worldwide problem of IUU fishing, which has deep economic and environmental consequences. The committee heard that the estimated economic loss from IUU fishing averages between $10 billion and $23 billion every year.
The international agreement ensures that there is a cohesive and collaborative effort to sustainably manage the resources contained in our oceans. On November 22, 2009, the member countries of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN reached an agreement on it. Canada was one of the countries that played a leadership role in that effort. Canada signed the port state measures agreement in 2010 and now needs to follow through with this commitment by ensuring that our legislation is amended to fulfill our international commitments.
Some of the most important stipulations in the port state measures agreement include: establishing standards for information to be provided by vessels seeking entry to port; continuing to deny port entry and service to vessels that are implicated in pirate fishing or IUU fishing unless entry is for enforcement purposes; and, setting minimum standards for vessel inspections and the training of inspectors.
I can say that Bill S-13 is widely supported by the fishing industry and is necessary in order to fulfill our international commitments. The only criticism from the president of the Fisheries Council of Canada was that it took too long to negotiate and ratify this agreement. Therefore, I sincerely hope that my colleagues on the opposition side will not delay this bill and hold up the implementation of measures that would enable Canada to effectively combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
Fish is a highly traded food commodity and as such illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing rapidly becomes a global problem with significant economic, social and environmental consequences. IUU fishing operators gain economic advantage over legitimate fish harvesters through lower cost of operations by circumventing national laws and regulations. They also undermine conservation and management measures of regional fisheries management organizations and other international standards.
Once IUU fish enter the market, it is very difficult if not impossible to distinguish them from legally caught fish. IUU fishing will remain a lucrative business if the benefits of landing and selling such products continue to outweigh the costs associated with being caught. IUU fish in the market can depress prices for fish products to unprofitable levels for legitimate fish harvesters. Canadian fish harvesters are susceptible to price fluctuations in international markets, as approximately 85% of fish caught in Canadian waters are exported, representing more than $4 billion annually.
Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, often referred to as pirate fishing, puts the livelihoods of legitimate fishermen around the world at risk and has an impact on the conservation and protection of our fisheries.
Pirate fishing is a global problem that undermines responsible fishing and has consequences on food security, safety at sea, marine environmental protection and the stability of prices for fish products in some markets. IUU fishing also poses serious potential threats to marine ecosystems and fish stocks. Therefore, by strengthening the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act we will protect this vital resource and support the international fight against pirate fishing.
Canadian fishermen feel the impacts of pirate fishing, including the depletion of stocks from overfishing, unfair competition with illegal fish products and price fluctuations created by illegal fish products in foreign markets. Therefore, we need to continue to be leaders in the fight against threats to our fishery in order to maintain a fair and stable market environment for our high quality fish and our seafood exports.
The proposed amendments to Canada's Coastal Fisheries Protection Act would help us to do that. The amendments represent the next steps in our effort to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. There are some loopholes now where fish can be caught illegally and then moved to another vessel, which can then legitimately say that it did not catch those fish illegally.
Bill S-13 proposes a new definition of fishing vessel that includes container vessels and any type of transshipment vessels so that transshipment at sea of fish that has not already been landed would be caught under the act. Also, if a country is fishing outside of the authority or the control of a regional fish management organization, if it is just fishing without any compliance with the international norms, then fish caught by that vessel would also be subject to intervention under the act.
The amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act would expand our capacity to deal with illegally caught fish from other jurisdictions. We would have the ability to deal with illegal fish product imports in the efficient way required by the port state measures agreement to which we are a signatory.
Canadians can be proud of our already strong port access regime for foreign fishing vessels. Among other measures, Canada does not allow entry to vessels on the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing vessel list of the Northwest Atlantic Fishing Organization, or the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, usually called ICCAT. The IUU vessel lists are a key tool for combating pirate fishing globally. These lists include not only the fishing vessels, but also any vessel that helps fishing vessels engaged in illegal acts. For example, if they provide fuel or transshipping products or packing materials, all of these activities would be covered and included in the list. Arrangements have already been undertaken among several regional fisheries management organizations to share their lists so that members can take the necessary action to deny port entry or services to listed vessels. This makes IUU fishing more and more difficult and expensive.
The proposed changes to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act set out even tougher prohibitions against the importation of illegally caught fish and other living marine organisms. Contravention of these provisions would be an offence under the amended Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, with penalties specified under the act. Together these measures would help dry up the profits from illegal fishing activities. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, in close collaboration with the Canada Border Services Agency, would carry out monitoring and enforcement with a view to minimizing impacts on legitimate cross-border trade of fish and seafood products.
Canada has a large stake in the fisheries and a lot of the stocks we fish are straddling stocks, stocks of fish that move from one area to another in the ocean. This means that to protect our fisheries we have to protect them inside and outside of our exclusive economic zone. When we combat illegal fishing that takes place elsewhere in the world it has a far-reaching positive effect here in Canada.
Preventing illegally taken fish and seafood products from entering Canadian markets is also a priority for Canada's major trading partners. Stronger controls at the border would help maintain our reputation as a responsible fishing nation and trading partner. The amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act that are before us would strengthen and clarify Canada's domestic rules and reinforce our leadership role in the global fight against pirate fishing.
I am very happy and proud of our government, which has taken action against this global problem that has an impact on our fisheries here at home. I encourage all members of the House to support the bill.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, this bill is truly based on good intentions, to encourage tourism in Canada by Canadians. Of course, taxpayers are in favour of more tax credits, especially when this would enable them to reduce the cost of their family vacations by a considerable amount.
However, before saying that this deduction would be good for both families and businesses, we should look closely and weigh several factors, including the cost of the bill itself, and thus its consequences for the government's revenue, Canadians' expected participation rate, the real effects of such a deduction on Canada's tourism industry and the additional complexity of the tax system.
The cost of this bill was estimated by the former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page. He responded to a request by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance for an estimate of the lost revenue to the government if such subsidies were granted. His conclusions were not really surprising.
Since no revenue source was proposed to counterbalance the expenditures related to this bill, Bill C-463 would result in reduced tax revenue.
Thus, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the net impact of Bill C-463 on federal tax revenue would be between $90 million and $120 million in 2017, in constant 2013 dollars.
Yet the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel claims confidently that the economic spinoffs from this bill would be sufficient to cover the cost of these deductions or, in the worst case, would be revenue-neutral for the government.
It is undeniable that such a bill would generate economic spinoffs. How big will they be? That is the question. If the hon. member has some calculations or more information on this, it could be interesting to hear about them, because even the Parliamentary Budget Officer was not able to establish an estimate.
We must determine how much use the taxpayers would make of this tax credit and what impact it would have on tourism. Will there really be new travel? Will people simply change their means of transportation or decide to go across one more provincial border in order to claim the tax credit? If they lengthen a planned trip in order to cross three provinces instead of two, only one part of the trip should be counted.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer added that he made his calculations based on the assumption that the proposed deductions would not cause carriers to increase prices, since if that were the case, a corresponding decline in induced demand could be expected.
It is a matter of aligning complex calculations with behavioural factors that are rather subjective. As it stands, we do not really have any credible figures, except those from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Those are the figures we will use to make a decision.
It is not enough to simply bring in this measure. The public must know that it exists to be able to take advantage of it.
The costing of the bill is based on the assumption that all those who are eligible will use the tax credit. We know that is not true, but we have no choice but to take that into consideration. However, that assumption skews the figures in favour of the proposal.
On the one hand, travellers who do not use the tax credit will save the government money by not claiming the money they are owed. On the other hand, their travel cannot be included in the statistics used for costing Bill C-463, since they would have travelled anyway.
Something really bothers me about my colleague's logic. He claims that the bill is meant to encourage Canadians to explore, appreciate and discover their country, to meet other Canadians and experience culture. He said the following when he introduced the bill:
We should remove some of the financial barriers that stop them from exploring this great land and tell them to go out and discover your Canada...
With all due respect, I do not see how families with financial struggles would prioritize travel across the country. They may want to, but times are tough for many people.
My NDP colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue also questioned why the member chose the rule of crossing at least three different provincial boundaries, and she did so very eloquently. I agree that if we want Canadians to travel more within the country, they should be able to choose their destination. In her example, she explained that someone who crosses three provincial boundaries does not necessarily travel further than someone who goes from the far north of the Northwest Territories to southern Saskatchewan.
Acknowledging the limitations of his bill, the member said that the main reason for his bill was as follows:
Canadians have to start getting to know one another and discovering Canada. The only way to do that is to get them to travel as far as possible in the regions. When I talk about the regions, I am not talking about going from an urban area to a rural area. I am talking about travelling to eastern, western and central Canada. That is how people can get to know one another.
To be honest, I do not see the difference. In fact, from what I understand, Canadians will prove they want to visit Canada and get to know their fellow Canadians by travelling across three provinces. That is rather ridiculous. He spoke at length about Canadian tourists who buoy up American tourism, so he should be happy simply that someone decides to travel in Canada.
After looking at the tax credit requirements, it is clear to me that the three-province rule was put in place to try and restrict accessibility and eligibility in some way. According to statistics from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 92% of trips within Canada are taken by plane, train or bus, and the vast majority of those, 88%, are not work-related and would therefore be eligible for the tax credit proposed in Bill C-463.
However, as far as the distance criterion is concerned, travellers cross at least three provinces in only 23% of travel by airplane within Canada. That being said, people who can afford to travel in three provinces are, for the most part, relatively well off. What is more, to benefit from this tax credit, a person would need a high enough income to pay taxes and for this non-refundable credit to make a difference in the taxable income. This is an important aspect of the bill that, I hope, in no way reflects what the member was getting at.
Travel, within the meaning of this bill, is considered a luxury for many Canadians. Many do not have the means to travel very far, or at least not far enough to benefit from the tax credit. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a maximum of 10% of tax deductions for travel would come out of this bill, which is equivalent to roughly $110 million out of $1.1 billion.
Is it worth the trouble? There may be less expensive and more sustainable ways of encouraging tourism and helping people to travel. I am not sure this is the best way to go about it, especially at a time when we are trying to have the government simplify the tax system and reduce economic inequality. I think it would be hypocritical to encourage a new tax credit that goes against the primary goal of the tax system, which is to distribute wealth, and makes it less progressive.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that when he said that “the benefits of tax measures proposed under Bill C-463 are anticipated to concentrate to higher income earners”. I am not necessarily talking about this credit in particular, but the direction of the tax policy in general. To be more progressive and more effective, the tax system has to remain as simple as possible.
To conclude, despite what the hon. member thinks, I believe that many trips that do not follow the three-province rule contribute just as much to helping people learn about socio-cultural differences. As a result, I do not see why they are completely disregarded. If the intent really is to have people travel and discover Canada, simply travelling from one province to another should be enough. Whether a person leaves from downtown Toronto or from Calgary to get to Chaleur Bay, the trip will be no less memorable.
With that thinking, the member is minimizing the unique character of each province and is reinforcing certain cultural stereotypes, like the idea that western Canada is all the same, regardless of the province, when that is not true. I truly hope that everyone has an opportunity to travel; not only is it pleasant, but it is also enriching. However, I am not sure that it should be a government priority, quite frankly. I think the $200 million or thereabouts could be better invested right now.
In short, I understand the member's intent, which is commendable. It is very important to encourage Canada's tourism industry. We support the intent of the bill. My riding in particular, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, depends largely on tourism, an important industry. However, the bill and its tax credit will do nothing to achieve the objectives or to help Canadians get to know each other better. This bill creates a tax credit that will benefit the wealthy more than everyone else.
View Glenn Thibeault Profile
Ind. (ON)
View Glenn Thibeault Profile
2013-05-02 10:06 [p.16182]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to present these petitions signed by numerous members of my constituency of Sudbury. They ask the government to look at protecting consumers from gas price gouging.
The petitioners maintain that gas prices fluctuate erratically, with prices prone to wide variations between communities and sharp spikes in anticipation of higher demand. They are calling on the Minister of Industry to present legislation on behalf of the government to protect Canadian consumers from the high price gouging we are seeing by some gasoline retailers.
View Glenn Thibeault Profile
Ind. (ON)
View Glenn Thibeault Profile
2013-04-22 14:41 [p.15717]
Mr. Speaker, in budget 2013 Conservatives raised taxes on everything from fishing rods to bicycles. To try to hide their broken promise, they even announced a tax break on hockey equipment, but they failed to their homework and did not include hockey helmets.
On Friday, after pressure from the NDP, Conservatives agreed to drop their tax hike on helmets. That is great news.
Now would the minister admit it is also a mistake to make life more expensive for already squeezed families by making hundreds of everyday items more expensive?
View Ted Menzies Profile
CPC (AB)
View Ted Menzies Profile
2013-04-22 14:41 [p.15717]
Mr. Speaker, that is completely false. Our intention is to provide tariff relief for hockey helmets, and we will be doing that. That is over and above the $76 million of broad-based tariff relief that is in budget 2013.
Economic action plan 2013 includes $76 million of broad-based tariff relief, and my understanding is that the NDP is going to vote against that.
View Annick Papillon Profile
NDP (QC)
View Annick Papillon Profile
2013-04-22 14:42 [p.15717]
Mr. Speaker, if they were able to admit their mistake regarding customs tariffs on hockey helmets, further to the great work accomplished by the hon. member for Sudbury, why are they not able to admit their mistake regarding all other consumer products?
The tariff hikes in their budget will increase the prices of many consumer products, including shampoo, deodorant, perfume and laundry detergent.
Will they apply the same exemptions to those products as they did to hockey helmets and cancel the tax hikes?
View Ted Menzies Profile
CPC (AB)
View Ted Menzies Profile
2013-04-22 14:42 [p.15717]
Mr. Speaker, all of those products that hon. member talks about actually have had their costs reduced. That is because we reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, with no help from the NDP. The NDP voted against that.
The NDP continues to try to raise taxes on Canadians. We have no idea how much its $21 billion carbon tax would raise the cost of everything that Canadian consumers buy.
We encourage those hon. members to support economic action plan 2013, which would provide more tariff relief to Canadians.
View Pierre Dionne Labelle Profile
NDP (QC)
View Pierre Dionne Labelle Profile
2013-04-22 14:43 [p.15717]
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may try to seem holier-than-thou, but people are not fools. They know that an increase in customs tariffs is an increase in taxes, period.
For instance, recreational fishers will have to spend more money this summer. Fishing lines, reels and rods will be more expensive. The Conservatives's tax hike will also affect outdoor enthusiasts and campers. They will raise taxes on camp stoves, coolers, and hatchets. Really, what do they have against camping?
Why do the Conservatives want to tax outdoor enthusiasts?
View Ted Menzies Profile
CPC (AB)
View Ted Menzies Profile
2013-04-22 14:44 [p.15717]
Mr. Speaker, as I said, taxes are lower because of the implementation of the reduced GST. Every product that Canadians buy has been reduced. The NDP does not seem to understand that.
Our tax rate on Canadians is the lowest it has been in 50 years, but the NDP wishes to give special breaks to companies manufacturing in China and Brazil.
We will stand up for Canadian companies.
View John Rafferty Profile
NDP (ON)
View John Rafferty Profile
2013-04-22 14:44 [p.15717]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance likes outdoor taxes. He is a fly fisherman. He knows that if there are fewer people on the rivers, he might actually catch a fish or two. He also knows that exploring Canada's outdoor beauty from a tent is a national tradition to be proud of, yet once again, in budget 2013, these Conservatives are secretly raising taxes on air mattresses, backpacks and even matches. What is next? Will it be a tax on outhouses, another crappy Conservative tax?
Why are Conservatives making it harder for Canadians to enjoy the outdoors?
View Ted Menzies Profile
CPC (AB)
View Ted Menzies Profile
2013-04-22 14:45 [p.15717]
Mr. Speaker, in fact the average family of four in Canada will have $3,200 more of their own hard-earned money in their pockets if they want to go fly-fishing in Ontario. I would encourage them to do that.
However, Canadians expect this Conservative government to deliver on our promise, and that is a continued reduction of taxes. It is not what the NDP wants to do, which is raise taxes.
Results: 1 - 15 of 157 | Page: 1 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data