Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 130
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-18 11:32 [p.29277]
Mr. Speaker, one of the main concerns the Conservatives have raised is that if we have a carbon price, it could prompt a carbon-intensive industry to move to jurisdictions with weaker environmental standards, eliminating Canadian jobs and potentially increasing global emissions. The government is trying to address this problem of carbon leakage with output-based rebates to industry that keeps its production here. Another approach to this problem would be carbon border adjustments, extending the carbon price to the carbon content of imports and rebating it on Canadian-made exports.
I would like to invite the parliamentary secretary to comment a bit further on the importance of maintaining a level playing field between Canada and countries that do not price emissions.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-18 18:23 [p.29336]
Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply and, like the rest of the independent caucus, will be voting yes.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-18 18:32 [p.29339]
Mr. Speaker, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the election of our first government in Saskatchewan, agrees to apply and votes yes.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-18 18:39 [p.29341]
Mr. Speaker, the government has approved the LNG Canada project, which of course entails a significant number of liquefied natural gas tankers on the north coast of B.C. I appreciate that the government has done its due diligence and put in place safeguards to ensure those LNG tankers can safely navigate the north coast of B.C.
Could the Minister of Transport explain why he does not have confidence that those same safeguards could not be made to enable oil tankers to safely navigate those same coastal waters?
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-17 13:38 [p.29172]
Mr. Speaker, while this legislation has been making its way through Parliament to ban oil tankers on the north coast of B.C., the government has approved the LNG Canada project, which would entail a significant number of liquefied natural gas tankers on the north coast of B.C.
I congratulate the government for putting in place safeguards to ensure that liquefied natural gas tankers can safely navigate the north coast of B.C. However, I would ask the member for Burnaby North—Seymour this. Why does he not believe those safeguards that would be adequate for liquefied natural gas would not be adequate to enable oil tankers to safely navigate those same waters?
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-13 15:11 [p.29069]
Mr. Speaker, universal pharmacare was part of the CCF's original vision for medicare. Yesterday's report estimated that it will save Canadians and employers $23 billion but cost governments $15 billion.
How much of that will Ottawa transfer to the provinces to make pharmacare a reality? Will that transfer be a block grant based on provincial demographics, or will it share the actual cost of covering prescription drugs in each province?
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-11 13:13 [p.28906]
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that one of the best features of the new NAFTA is the removal of the investor-state dispute resolution provisions which had enabled foreign corporations to directly challenge our democratic laws, regulations and policies before secretive international tribunals rather than in the normal court system. Therefore, I am wondering whether the government will seek to remove investor-state provisions from Canada's other free trade agreements.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-10 13:55 [p.28801]
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about cheaper telecommunications services in other countries. I would like to highlight that in Saskatchewan, we have affordable unlimited data plans because SaskTel is a Crown corporation owned by the people of Saskatchewan. If there is one element missing from today's otherwise excellent motion, it is public ownership of telecommunications as a means of ensuring affordable and accessible access to what the member for Windsor West correctly describes as an essential service.
I appreciate that we cannot move amendments during questions and comments, but I would like to ask the member for Windsor West whether he would be amenable to adding a paragraph (f) to his motion, directing the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development not to approve privatization of SaskTel?
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-06 13:15 [p.28687]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of serving on the all-party steel caucus with the member for Hamilton Mountain. I would just invite him to speak to the role of the all-party steel caucus in advocating for appropriate safeguards for our steel industry.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-06 13:26 [p.28688]
Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour of serving with the member for Sault Ste. Marie on the all-party steel caucus.
As I think we all understand in this House, the legislation we are debating today would remove the moratorium, which would allow the government to bring in safeguard measures. I am wondering if he could provide some reassurance that the government's intention is to actually bring in those safeguards to protect Canada's steel industry and steelworkers from unfair competition from offshore steel, often produced in violation of internationally recognized labour and environmental standards.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-06 13:59 [p.28693]
Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago today, in the largest seaborne invasion in the history of the world, allied soldiers opened another front against Nazi Germany to help liberate occupied Europe.
The first Canadians on the beach were the Royal Regina Rifles. They landed at the most heavily fortified German point on the Anglo-Canadian beaches, facing artillery and 12 machine gun pillboxes.
Two of the regiment's landing craft were destroyed by mines. Fortunately, most of the Regina Rifles made it ashore with support from amphibious tanks. They cleared the beach and captured the port of Courseulles, where the Juno Beach Centre Museum is now located.
Today, Canadians are proud of the role our country played in the allied landings. The people of Regina will always remember what our regiment contributed to this Canadian victory.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-04 19:32 [p.28536]
Mr. Speaker, those of us who have had the privilege of serving in this 42nd Parliament have experienced some truly historic moments. We celebrated the 150th anniversary of this Parliament. We welcomed President Barack Obama into this House to speak to us. We witnessed the return of the CCF after half a century, contributing to the largest number of independent MPs in Canadian history. We served in the Centre Block and in this new House.
I was honoured to be part of that history, but my interest in politics has always been motivated by an interest in public policy, so I want to talk about some of the issues that I have raised in this Parliament, both as a member of the NDP caucus and as an independent MP.
During my time in the NDP caucus, I was the first MP in the House to call for federal funding to help restore bus service in Saskatchewan. I was also the first MP to call for a federal role in keeping SaskTel public. As part of the NDP caucus, I even managed to sneak in one member's statement advocating for the use of Regina-made steel in the Trans Mountain expansion. It has been even easier to advocate for Regina-made steel as an independent MP.
In the NDP caucus I tried to raise the idea of border adjustments to carbon pricing to ensure a level playing field for our Canadian workers. As members know, I got into some trouble with my party leadership for debating that issue, which brings me to my time as an independent. Of course, I have been more free to speak up for the use of Regina steel in Trans Mountain and for extending federal carbon pricing to the carbon content of imports while rebating it on Canadian-made exports.
I have been the only member of this Parliament to advocate for restoring VIA Rail service to Regina and for a federal investigation of the Regina bypass. I was the first member of the House to advocate for federal assistance to our canola farmers when China closed its market.
In addition to the issues that I have been proud to raise on the floor of this House, I also want to speak to some of the issues that I have been able to work on through committees.
In this 42nd Parliament, I was the only western Canadian MP to serve on the all-party steel caucus. We travelled to Washington to advocate for a Canadian exemption from American steel tariffs and I am extremely pleased to see that goal has been achieved.
I served as the NDP vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Erin Weir: I hear some of my colleagues from that committee. I think it was a very co-operative committee and I actually went to the same high school as the chair of that committee. I think it is probably a rare thing in this Parliament to have a committee chair and a vice-chair from the same high school, Campbell Collegiate in Regina, in this case.
At that committee I was able to ask about the Phoenix pay system, even before it became a national scandal. I pushed to keep the government's feet to the fire on paying our federal public servants correctly and on time.
Our committee also conducted a major study on the future of Canada Post. Talking about Canada Post, one of my proud moments in this House was occupying the Prime Minister's chair during committee of the whole to speak up for collective bargaining rights in response to back-to-work legislation for postal workers.
The government operations committee also undertook a major study of whistle-blower protection in the federal public service. The report that we prepared was a truly unanimous report without any dissenting or supplementary reports from any political party. I believe it is a fairly rare accomplishment in this Parliament to achieve that level of agreement at a committee, so I am certainly very proud of that report.
When I became an independent MP, I had no guaranteed spots at committee. On the other hand, I had the freedom to try to intervene on any committee. Most recently, I have participated in meetings of the agriculture and trade committees to advocate for federal assistance to canola farmers, and I am pleased that the government has expanded the advance payments program to provide some assistance to those producers.
I also participated in hearings of the justice and ethics committees on SNC-Lavalin. I was able to ask questions of the now independent member for Vancouver Granville, Gerry Butts and Michael Wernick.
I do not believe that I would have been able to play that role on those committees as a member of the NDP caucus, so on reflection, I am pleased to have been able to spend part of this term as an independent MP. It is something I would recommend to other members of the House, especially those who might be on the fence and considering joining our growing corner of Parliament.
I am going to stop short of thanking the federal NDP leader for removing me from caucus and making me an independent, but I do want to thank all the local volunteers and donors who helped elect me in a very closely fought campaign.
I also want to say that the support of family, friends, staff and other people across Canada through difficult times has meant so much to me. I particularly want to thank all the former elected officials, national commentators and grassroots activists who spoke up for due process, common sense and local democracy.
Most of all I want to thank the people of Regina for entrusting me with the great privilege of representing them in Parliament, which has been the greatest honour of my life.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-03 15:06 [p.28415]
Mr. Speaker, a dispute over border security and tariffs has raised questions about whether Mexico will ratify the new NAFTA. By contrast, Canada and the U.S. share a secure border, similar wage rates and balanced trade.
If Mexico does not ratify, will the Canadian government amend the replacement protocol so we can ratify the new NAFTA bilaterally with our largest trading partner?
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-06-03 15:42 [p.28422]
Mr. Speaker, today, Bill S-214, which would ban the sale and manufacture of cosmetics using animal testing, was debated in the House for the first time.
I am pleased to present more than 2,400 petition signatures, collected at The Body Shop in Regina's Southland Mall, in support of the legislation.
It is disappointing that the legislation was not brought forward in the House of Commons earlier, but I hope the next Parliament will take account of the strong public support for a ban on animal testing.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-28 22:14 [p.28199]
Madam Speaker, the Insurance Brokers were on Parliament Hill today, which reminded me of the member for Foothills because I just renewed my insurance with Dusyk & Barlow.
One of my constituents, Michael Huck, a tireless advocate for people living with disabilities, made a submission to the standing committee studying the accessible Canada act. One of the points he emphasized was the importance of promoting this legislation after it is passed so that employers know about it. He also emphasized the importance of recognizing designated entities who are doing a good job of creating a barrier-free environment.
Those of us on the opposition side are often skeptical of government advertising, but I wonder if the member for Foothills would agree with supporting efforts to promote the accessible Canada act.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-16 18:34 [p.27984]
Mr. Speaker, the day after the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith was elected in that riding's by-election, I rose in this House to ask about the possibility of adding more independent questions to accommodate the growing number of independent MPs. The Green Party is not a recognized party in this House, so its MPs are adding to the number of independents, which is now 21, the largest ever in Canadian history.
It seems only logical that as the number of independent MPs increases, the number of opportunities for us to participate in question period should increase correspondingly. However, the government House leader rejected this suggestion, stating, “There is a formula to determine the number of questions for each party and for independents.” It would be nice to know what that formula is. Perhaps the government will be able to provide a more detailed answer this evening.
I can certainly say that the soon-to-be-21 independent MPs are now sharing only 14 spots in question period every week. We compare that to the officially recognized opposition parties. An NDP caucus of 41 MPs gets 54 question period spots every week, and a Conservative caucus of 97 MPs gets 120 questions per week. I think we all accept the idea that officially recognized parties would receive some extra questions. They get a bit of a bonus.
However, it seems that the current formula, such as it is, is completely out of whack. To provide a direct comparison, the NDP caucus has about twice as many MPs as the independent group, yet receives nearly four times as many spots in question period every week. It does not strike me that this represents a reasonable allocation of question period opportunities or that it provides a fair chance for independent MPs to speak up for our constituents.
Of course, there is a bit of history to this question. Earlier in this Parliament, the Bloc Québécois, which is also part of the independent group, raised a point of privilege, requesting more spots in question period. The Chair ruled that this was not a matter of privilege. Fair enough, but I want to emphasize that this ruling does not mean that the current allocation is proper or that it makes sense. There may not be a right to more questions as a matter of privilege, but surely common sense would suggest that the allocation of questions should reflect, roughly speaking, the allocation of MPs.
Therefore, when the government House leader says that there is a formula, at the start of this Parliament what that formula meant was that there were as many questions for independents as there were independent MPs. When I became an independent MP, the Speaker added another question to the Tuesday question period to maintain that balance, but since then we have had seven more independent MPs and no additional independent questions. I think that is where the allocation breaks down, and I hope the government would support reallocating some opportunities to independent MPs to restore a proper equilibrium.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-16 18:38 [p.27985]
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary began by quoting a Speaker's ruling that 14 question period slots were appropriate for independent MPs. The Speaker made that ruling at a time when there were only 15 independent MPs. I think it was reasonable at that point in time. Of course, there are now going to be 21 independent MPs, and what I am suggesting is that the number of questions should be related to the number of MPs.
The parliamentary secretary also raised the question about whether the slots allocated to independents are being used. I am pleased to assure him that they are, every week. We now have 21 MPs sharing 14 slots, so certainly if someone is not available, other MPs step in very quickly to fill those spots. The utilization of those spots is a matter of public record. It is not at all in doubt.
The fundamental point here is that it is quite strange to imagine that there is a formula for question period that is totally disconnected from the actual numbers of MPs.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-14 15:07 [p.27766]
Mr. Speaker, on the Mark Norman case, it has been refreshing to hear the federal NDP leader speak up for due process.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-14 15:08 [p.27766]
Mr. Speaker, that case and the SNC-Lavalin controversy have raised questions about interference in our justice system. They have also underscored the need for independent review of decisions made by the director of public prosecutions.
Will the government commit to separate the office of the attorney general from the minister of justice if re-elected?
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-13 19:30 [p.27720]
Mr. Speaker, near the end of January, I was proud to be the only member of the House to rise to question the Government of Canada's decision to recognize Juan Guaidó standing up in front of a crowd and unilaterally declaring himself to be the President of Venezuela. That is the question that prompts this evening's adjournment debate.
I do not pretend to be an expert on Venezuelan politics, but I do have a clear idea about what Canada's role in the world should be, and I think the best contribution Canada can make, as an honest broker, is as a country that is trusted to mediate when these kinds of disputes come up.
It is certainly legitimate to question the current Maduro government of Venezuela. It is one thing to propose that there should be new elections in that country, but it is quite another to simply recognize an opposition politician's declaration that he is the new president of the country. I would suggest in hindsight that it really has not worked out all that well.
It has now been about three and a half months, and we see that Mr. Guaidó has not clearly established himself as a new government in Venezuela. There have not been new elections in that country. Mr. Guaidó is now appealing to the Venezuelan military and now even directly to the American military to intervene in his favour. It seems that concerns about a coup or armed conflict are really starting to materialize.
I do not have a lengthy speech, but I really hope that the parliamentary secretary can provide the House with a bit of an update on what the government's plan is now.
It has been months since the Canadian government agreed to recognize Mr. Guaidó, and it does not seem as though the goals of that policy have been achieved. The only real consequence of the Government of Canada jumping the gun in that fashion is that it is now very difficult for our country to play any kind of constructive role, to participate as an honest broker or to be seen as any kind of mediator in Venezuela.
I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary can give us an update and a bit of an explanation of what the Government of Canada's plan is for Venezuela going forward.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-13 19:37 [p.27721]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliament secretary and congratulate him on his relatively recent appointment as a parliamentary secretary. I believe this might be his very first adjournment debate, and so I would like to welcome him to the late show.
I believe the presentation that he provided might have been compelling back in January when the Government of Canada first decided to recognize Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela. However, I do not think it addresses how things have unfolded since then. This idea of Mr. Guaidó as an interim president who is going to hold new elections, I think, conflicts with the fact that three and half months have gone by. How long is this interim presidency going to last, and at what point is it going to actually translate into elections?
I really have to ask whether the parliamentary secretary would at least acknowledge that things have not unfolded as his government would have hoped.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-07 15:07 [p.27484]
Mr. Speaker, as the independent whip, it falls to me to congratulate Paul Manly on last night's byelection win in Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
Including him, we will have 21 independent MPs sharing only 14 weekly spots in question period. Would the Prime Minister support reallocating more questions to independents so that Mr. Manly and all of us can better represent our constituents?
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-07 18:21 [p.27508]
Mr. Speaker, back in December, I asked about restoring VIA passenger rail service between Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary. In response, the Minister of Transport tried to reassure me that Via Rail does pass through Saskatchewan. He must have been referring to the quite limited VIA Rail service to Saskatoon, but I want to make the distinction between Regina and Saskatoon clear to the parliamentary secretary, because that seemed to be a point of confusion for the minister. My question was about restoring passenger service on the southern Prairie line, from Winnipeg to Regina to Calgary.
One of the original purposes of our Canadian Confederation was to build a railway across the Prairies to the Pacific coast, so it is somewhat ironic that today we do not have passenger rail service in the southern part of the Prairies. Of course, the motivation behind my question was not simply to achieve that historic goal. I think in the present day, we need to recognize the importance of providing accessible transportation options to people and also of providing transportation options that are environmentally friendly.
We had a whole debate in this House for most of today about an opposition motion regarding the price of gasoline, and a lot of the argument came down to whether a higher gasoline price would motivate consumers to drive less. A key part of that question was whether people had concrete alternatives to driving. On the southern Prairies, people do not.
The Saskatchewan Transportation Company and Greyhound have both withdrawn intercity bus service, and as I mentioned, there is no VIA Rail service in the southern part of the Prairies. Therefore, people really do not have much of an option other than to drive or fly. We have people without the means to travel for important purposes, and the people who do have the means to travel do not have much choice but to use these more polluting means of transport. That is part of the major rationale for wanting to restore VIA Rail service on the southern Prairies.
I am sure that one of the questions is how much this would cost. Is it feasible? Is this a realistic proposal? I took a look at VIA Rail's 2017 annual report, which is the most recent annual report available. What it shows is that the subsidy per passenger mile in western Canada, in other words for long-haul travel from Toronto to Vancouver, is about 32¢, which is quite similar to the subsidy of 28¢ per passenger mile across VIA Rail's entire system. As well, it is quite a bit less than the subsidies of three dollars and four dollars per passenger mile that we find on some of VIA's more remote routes. What I am proposing is actually quite consistent with Via's existing operations.
To put that in terms of total dollars, the subsidy for long-haul travel west of Toronto is $41 million. Extending that to the southern part of the Prairies would presumably cost a comparable amount, which would be quite a bit less than the $350 million currently provided to VIA Rail.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-07 18:28 [p.27509]
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by agreeing with the parliamentary secretary that it is quite disappointing that the Government of Saskatchewan did not take up the funding that the Government of Canada offered to try to restore some intercity bus service. However, the federal government does not simply need to wait for the province to agree to cost-share bus service; the federal government could, on its own, restore passenger rail service on the southern prairies.
I thought it was interesting that the parliamentary secretary began by mentioning that VIA Rail is needed to provide a transport option to Canadians. I want to reiterate that this option does not exist on the southern prairies. It is impossible to travel from Winnipeg to Regina to Calgary by train.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned all the money the government spent in restoring passenger rail service to Churchill, Manitoba. That is a good thing, but it would be far more economical to restore that same service on the southern prairies.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-03 12:08 [p.27344]
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot in this House about SNC-Lavalin, but Saskatchewan people are concerned about another multinational construction company accused of corruption. Vinci Construction took $2 billion to build a bypass around Regina that was supposed to cost only $400 million. Will the government investigate to ensure that the federal funds invested in this boondoggle were not misused?
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-01 18:54 [p.27267]
Mr. Speaker, the question that prompts this adjournment debate is with respect to the agenda for a premiers' conference that occurred months ago. I would like to broaden the adjournment debate to talk about the federal government's role in coordinating among provinces. Specifically, I would like to address the new Alberta government's proposal to slash its provincial corporate income tax rate to 8%.
The reason this should be of concern to the Government of Canada is that our federal corporate tax structure includes a 10 percentage point abatement to allow provinces and territories to levy their own corporate taxes. Currently, all provinces have corporate tax rates of around 12%. The only exceptions are in Atlantic Canada, where provinces have slightly higher corporate income tax rates. Therefore, that obviously accounts for the abatement from the federal government.
In proposing to slash Alberta's corporate tax rate to 8%, Jason Kenney is effectively asking the federal government to continue to provide a 10% abatement to companies operating in Alberta, even though they will only pay 8% provincial corporate tax. I do not think this makes sense and I want to suggest that the federal government should not go along with that. The federal government should require that to receive a 10% abatement, a province should be levying a corporate income tax rate of at least 10%.
Why would the federal government want to establish this type of a corporate tax floor for provinces?
The first point is obviously one of common sense. If the federal government has provided an abatement of 10% to allow provincial and territorial corporate taxes, those provincial and territorial corporate taxes should be at least that amount. However, a more fundamental reason is that the federal government should not want to encourage a race to the bottom on corporate taxes.
The federal government has wisely resisted the temptation to engage in such a race to the bottom with the United States. When confronted with the Trump administration's corporate tax cuts, the Government of Canada did not actually cut the federal corporate tax rate in this country. Instead it provided an accelerated depreciation for companies that were making investments in Canada.
Therefore, I do not think it makes any more sense for the federal government to be facilitating a race to the bottom among provinces on corporate taxes. That is exactly what Mr. Kenney is contemplating in proposing an 8% corporate tax rate for Alberta. He has specifically talked about achieving a competitive advantage relative to B.C. and Saskatchewan.
Clearly, the federal government needs to look out not only for Alberta's competitiveness, but also for the competitiveness of its neighbours. Indeed, in preserving our economic union, we should hope that industries will make decisions about where to locate among provinces based on real economic factors, not based on tax differences. It makes the Canadian economy less efficient if companies are moving around between provinces simply to take advantage of lower corporate income tax rates.
In summary, I believe the federal government should make its corporate tax abatement of 10 points contingent on provinces and territories levying corporate taxes of at least that amount.
View Erin Weir Profile
CCF (SK)
View Erin Weir Profile
2019-05-01 19:01 [p.27268]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the parliamentary secretary. It certainly was not my intention to catch anyone off-guard. The question that this adjournment debate was based on was indeed about energy issues on the agenda of the premier's conference. However, since that conference is over, I wanted to speak about another federal-provincial issue that has a big impact on our energy sector, which is Alberta's proposal to slash its corporate income tax rate to 8%.
I certainly do not expect the parliamentary secretary to come up with a snap response to that issue. However, I would encourage the federal government to seriously consider whether it makes sense to continue extending a 10% corporate tax abatement to corporations in Alberta if that provincial government decides to cut its corporate tax rate below that 10% threshold.
This is an important issue for the House to deal with going forward.
Results: 1 - 30 of 130 | Page: 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data