Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 31 - 45 of 138
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-05-13 16:57
They relate to the change in use of properties. Currently, for example, if you own a rental property and you make it your principal residence, there is a deemed disposition of the rental property. The value that it increased while it was a rental property is taxable, and the value that it increased while it was your principal residence is eligible for the principal residence exemption.
Currently there is a deferral available when stand-alone property is changed from, say, rental to personal use, possibly qualifying for the principal residence exemption. However, that election is not currently available in respect of changes of use of multi-unit residential properties. If you have a duplex, for example, and you're renting out both units but decide to change one into your principal residence, that election to defer the accrued gain is currently not available. It's sort of a technical hole in the rules. There's no reason it should be available for a stand-alone property and not for a semi-detached or a duplex.
This would help align the rules for multi-unit properties with those that currently exist for single-unit properties, and it would provide for a more coherent set of tax rules.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ste-Marie stole my question, but I have a follow-up one. How is it that we're defining “non-resident”?
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-05-13 17:01
I can speak to the tax definition of “residency”. The other programs might have different definitions of residency, perhaps based on citizenship rules or what have you. Under our domestic rules, tax residency—the concept of where you are resident, fundamentally—looks to where your ties are. That could be where your house is, where your family is, where your bank accounts are and things like that. It's a bit of a factual determination.
There are also rules in the Income Tax Act that can deem you resident in Canada, for example, if you sojourn in Canada for more than 183 days. Layered on that, there are rules in our tax treaties whereby you could be resident in Canada under Canada's law and resident in another country under its law. Our treaties often provide rules for tie-breakers to determine where somebody actually is resident. In the international context in particular, it can be a difficult determination. However, for tax purposes fundamentally, it looks to where your domestic ties are located.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I do thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First off, Netflix is excluded from paying the much-vaunted new tax. Will the government disclose the secret agreement that took place in negotiations with Netflix behind the scene?
Secondly, concerning the Trans Mountain pipeline, how much does the government expect to pour into that pipeline? Given that the PBO has indicated that it will cost $14 billion for construction and another $4.5 billion for acquisition, at what point will this government step in to say enough is enough: we're not going to keep pouring money into this pipeline?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Julian, you and I sometimes disagree on policy outcomes, but rarely do we disagree on facts. Here, however, when it comes to Internet taxes, I must say that I disagree with your framing of what our government is doing. Let me just take a moment to outline what we're doing. First of all, there is no exclusion for Netflix or any Internet company.
Second of all, our government in this budget and in the fall economic statement is moving more clearly and more forcefully to introduce a level playing field for international and Canadian companies when it comes to the Internet space, and to impose taxes on digital service companies. We're doing that more forcefully than any Canadian government has ever done. We are doing that in three parts.
I now see the chair looking like he wants me to stop talking, so I will have to talk about those three different levels of tax that we are introducing in another answer, but I want to be clear that our government believes it is important to have a level playing field for Canadian companies in the Internet space, and it's important to be taxing the companies that are active in this space.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
That would be great. I won't ask another question on it, but I will ask, whether from Ms. Anderson or another official who works on that, if the committee could also be provided with information about what other jurisdictions and other countries are doing to address this. That would be quite welcome as well.
Can officials comment on measures in the budget that would help housing affordability? What is in there that can be highlighted?
There is the tax on foreign buyers, for example. I'm just wondering if that could be discussed more.
Andrew Marsland
View Andrew Marsland Profile
Andrew Marsland
2021-05-11 18:06
Yes, Mr. Chair.
The proposal in the budget is a proposal for consultation, but it's a consultation on a new national 1% tax on the value of non-Canadian-owned residential real estate in Canada. The proposal is that it would apply subject to certain exceptions, and that it would apply beginning in 2022.
There is work to be done in developing that. The budget indicated that we would have some engagement on framing that tax, but in essence that's how it would work. The idea is to essentially apply the tax to underused housing in Canada. Again, there are more details to be worked out in respect of how it would apply in resorts or tourism communities, or not apply in that case in those areas.
We will be consulting on that and coming out with further details following the consultation.
Laure Waridel
View Laure Waridel Profile
Laure Waridel
2021-05-11 11:26
So we are speaking today as mothers who are part of Mothers Step In, a movement of mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers from all walks of life, joining forces to protect our children's future. There are 5,600 of us across Quebec and beyond. Twenty-five groups are active locally, which requires political courage at the municipal, federal and provincial levels. In Canada, we work with For Our Kids.
We feel that, to protect our children's future, we must protect the environment and social justice. That is why we have been calling for months for a fair and green recovery and are providing our elected members with the document “101 ideas for the recovery”, part of the Pact for the Transition, to which we have provided a link at the end of our brief.
To avoid crises like the one caused by COVID-19, we must urgently transform our economy. Much more is needed than the greening of technologies. We must address overconsumption and waste. We have known for a long time that the planet's resources are limited, as is the capacity of ecosystems to absorb our waste, including plastics, of course. An increase in unlimited material and energy consumption in a world with limited resources is mathematically impossible, and it is up to our governments to implement the regulations necessary to remaining within planetary boundaries.
You, who are our elected representatives or work with them, must immediately stop supporting anything that contributes to a gradual destruction of life on Earth. On the contrary, you must encourage whatever protects the Earth. Here are a few concrete ways that would help put words into action for a fair and green recovery.
First, real climate legislation must be passed, and subsidies for fossil fuels must end.
As elected members of the House of Commons, you have the power to act so that Canada would have a real piece of climate legislation. It is imperative to improve Bill C–12 on net-zero emissions, so that measures would be implemented to require us to meet scientifically established targets as quickly as possible, without waiting for 2050. Canada must adopt accountability and transparency rules as soon as possible. Starting now, the government must consider all the repercussions of climate decisions from coast to coast and from north to south.
A real climate test should force the government to immediately stop subsidizing fossil fuels and to do away with the Trans Mountain pipeline. According to official figures from the Energy Policy Tracker, since the beginning of the pandemic alone, the Canadian government has invested more than $30 billion in subsidies for the fossil fuel sector. That is equivalent to over $800 per Canadian, without taking Trans Mountain into account, which will cost taxpayers more than $12.6 billion over the next few years.
Right now, our government is funding the destruction of our children's future. That money must be invested in the economy's green transition. The Canadian government must directly support workers and communities that depend on fossil fuels, so that they can start looking for solutions.
Second, focus should be placed on the green tax system.
That would help internalize the environmental and social costs of products and services. The polluter pays principle should be applied along the economic chain. That will create real incentives for investing and disinvesting money in order to reduce the environmental footprint of our individual and collective behaviours. Since the wealthy consume more goods and typically pollute more than those less well off, they would have to take on their fair share of responsibility.
The carbon pricing policy implemented by the current government must be only the beginning. Extended producer responsibility in terms of producers' impact on the environment and on society must apply to all economic sectors and to all types of pollution along the economic chain.
I have unfortunately gone over my time, but I want to appeal to you once more. We are asking you to make decisions that truly take into account the future of our children, and of your children and grandchildren.
Thank you for your attention.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to acknowledge Laure Waridel's presence. It's a privilege to have a distinguished person like her at the committee.
In your opinion, would a true green taxation policy create real incentives to invest or divest in order to reduce the ecological footprint of our individual or collective behaviours?
What do you think?
Laure Waridel
View Laure Waridel Profile
Laure Waridel
2021-05-11 12:45
Thank you, Mr. Lemire.
Absolutely, the green taxation is an extraordinary way to bring the market towards eco-friendly choices. Starting with a carbon price is a step in the right direction, but we need to go much further than that if we want to listen to the science and respect our planet's limits with respect to climate and biodiversity.
The green taxation is a way to internalize environmental and social costs, which the market does not currently allow. We are dragging our feet and mortgaging our children's future as a result.
When you go to the grocery store, you will notice that local organic apples cost much more than chemically treated apples imported from Chile, for example. Yet the environmental impact of imported industrially grown apples is much greater than that of local apples.
Climate change is also affecting energy costs. Because of COVID-19, we are now seeing how expensive a health crisis is. We are also seeing the impact of floods and droughts on agriculture.
What I'm urging you all, especially elected officials, to do is to take responsibility, in that the first responsibility of governments is to protect the health and safety of their people.
Right now, the scientific studies are very clear that our inaction will cost human lives and clearly damage the economy. Even the proposals of the World Economic Forum in Davos, which supports traditional neo-liberalism, stress the importance of applying the polluter pays principle and internalizing environmental and social costs.
It is time for Canadians to stop burying our heads in the oil sands, because that is what we are doing by not listening to the science. We are therefore setting up crises that our children will have to face.
I am speaking here today not only as a mother, but also as a scientist. I invite you to read the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and those of Ouranos, and to focus on the solutions, because there are solutions.
There is resistance to change, but Canada has a duty to be in this game on behalf of many economic players, some of whom are around the table today.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
My last question has to do with tax fairness.
During the pandemic, since businesses were closed, people turned to Web giants like Amazon. Should the federal government expedite the requirement that these giants collect sales tax and pay the equivalent of a tax on their sales?
Jacques Létourneau
View Jacques Létourneau Profile
Jacques Létourneau
2021-04-15 17:46
This was in my presentation, but unfortunately I skipped this topic. You did read the brief that we filed not too long ago. We do believe that the government needs to implement a tax on the GAFAs of this world, i.e. Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and others, while waiting for the OECD's proposed tax measures to be implemented.
I think the Liberal Party of Canada made a commitment to implement such a tax in the last election. What is called the temporary GAFA tax should definitely be implemented in the 2021 budget. I think it is urgent. It must be done to respect Quebec and Canadian companies, which pay taxes in Canada and Quebec.
C.T. (Manny) Jules
View C.T. (Manny) Jules Profile
C.T. (Manny) Jules
2021-04-15 12:11
Good morning, honourable members.
My name is Manny Jules. I am the chief commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission, which is one of three institutions created by the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, or FMA. I was also chief of the Kamloops Indian Band from 1984 to 2000.
Thank you for this opportunity to address this committee as part of your study on competitiveness in Canada.
Canada's productivity challenge is real and COVID-19 has made it acute. Meeting this challenge will determine whether or not we can maintain or improve our living standards, lift first nations out of poverty, and continue to fund our social infrastructure. Despite immigration, Canada is an aging society. Service costs like health care will rise sharply. We are going to have trouble maintaining services, particularly at the provincial level, unless we can improve productivity.
There are a few factors that determine productivity. I'm going to focus on just one, which is improving the first nations' investment climate.
First nations are a younger and faster growing population than Canada as a whole. We have higher unemployment, lower pay and, often, unproductive land. Too many of our children grow up without being exposed to work opportunities and the role models those create. This puts them at a disadvantage for the rest of their lives. That is not good for Canada's competitiveness.
I have spent most of my career turning this around. I have concluded that the root of our problem is the way we are viewed.
You see a social problem that needs to be fixed with government programs. I have a different philosophy. I think our disparities are fundamentally economic. Our economic issues are a result of first nations being systematically legislated out of the economy. Government oversight has prevented investment from happening on our lands. Social problems are a result of that.
How can we fix this? We need to focus on removing the things that have taken us out of the economy. We talk about the costs of interprovincial trade barriers, and rightfully so. We also need to talk about the investment barriers that have been put up around first nation lands.
We have identified a successful, three-part formula to build a stronger first nation investment climate. It is based on putting decision-making power in first nation hands, so they can respond to opportunities. First, develop legislation that recognizes first nation jurisdiction and provides an orderly process to occupy it. Second, establish first nation institutions to provide support and standards, so that first nations implement their jurisdiction in a manner that grows their economies and enhances the economic union of Canada. Third, provide training and capacity development to first nation administrations, so they know what to do.
This approach has worked. The First Nation Fiscal Management Act is the most successful first nation-led legislative initiative in Canadian history. This committee should build on that success by supporting four proposals to improve the act.
First, first nations need more sustainable economic infrastructure. In the last year, we have worked closely with the federal government to develop the legislation for a first nation infrastructure institute. The rapid implementation of this institute will ensure that we have the foundation to compete in a competitive investment climate.
Second, we need to provide tax and decision-making power to first nations. You cannot have government decision-making power if you are entirely funded by a contribution agreement. Fiscal powers give us a strong incentive for economic success. It reward good policies in a way that program funding never will. It allows us to implement our jurisdictions so we can, in my dad's words, move at the speed of business.
This can start with two easily implemented fiscal powers: a sales tax on fuel, alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis—the FACT tax—and FACT excise tax sharing. I must note that on Monday, the Government of New Brunswick unilaterally cancelled the tax-sharing agreement with first nations in that province. The fiscal math of Canada is unrelenting. First nations need new legislated tax powers.
Third, we need to improve our resource economy competitiveness. First nations are often the only governments in a region that don't receive direct fiscal benefits from major resource projects in their territories. This makes it difficult to get our participation and support, and that means resource investment has fallen off relative to our competitors. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been diverted to other countries. We can fix this with a resource charge, supported with an offsetting federal tax credit. This would create transparent, standardized and stable first nation fiscal benefits from resource development. It could coordinate with federal and provincial tax systems.
The FNTC would support its implementation and coordination. This would provide many rural and remote first nations with economic opportunities and break the cycle of poverty that disadvantages so many children from an early age.
DT Cochrane
View DT Cochrane Profile
DT Cochrane
2021-03-17 16:14
Thank you kindly for having Canadians for Tax Fairness comment on this bill. If I'm not mistaken, members of every party, in the course of speaking to Bill C-14, expressed support for tax fairness. That's music to the ears of our organization. Now we just need to see some real action.
Before I discuss taxes, let me touch on the other side of the ledger—spending. This bill will provide needed funds for some important measures. Unfortunately, it does not go far enough. Parents need more support. Students need more support. People with disabilities, our elders, workers, local businesses and the poor need more support. It was true before the pandemic. The crisis just made it starker.
Predictably, even insufficient support has led to fearmongering about the debt. Most of the concerns are misguided and misleading. The federal government's debt is not like the debts of households or businesses or other levels of government. The federal government literally spends money into existence. There is no limit to its financial resources.
That does not mean there is no limit to the government's spending. The limits are imposed by the real resources that money can command. Eventually, if increases in money circulating in the economy do not increase the products, services and assets that we want to buy, we will get inflation.
At the moment, this is a remote concern. Despite worries at the beginning of the pandemic and misinformed fears recently, inflation remains well below the Bank of Canada's long-standing target of 2%. Taxes are an important tool for controlling inflation, as they draw money out of the economy. However, just as importantly, they are a tool for controlling inequality.
We have a trickle-up economy. Consider the money given directly to people at the bottom of our economic hierarchy. Some of that money gets spent on rent, which goes to a landlord. The landlord uses it to cover the mortgage, which goes to a lender. The lending company uses some of that money to pay its workers, while some will be used to pay its own creditors, and some may go to dividends. Those workers will buy food at a grocery chain, which again will pay workers as well as creditors and equity owners. As the money spent into the economy circulates, portions of it are continually siphoned off to asset owners.
The work of Thomas Piketty and his collaborators shows that the wealthy get wealthier simply by virtue of the highly unequal distribution of asset ownership. Their income from owning assets is not a reward for entrepreneurial risk or innovation. It is not a reward for hard work. They accumulate wealth simply by already being wealthy. The wealthy are able to use their money to shape our society in detrimental ways. They fund think tanks that defend their interests while presenting as neutral commentators. They hire lobbyists to influence lawmakers on policies that benefit them. They employ an untold number of people to bend tax laws and exploit offshore tax havens. This applies to both wealthy families and powerful corporations.
Wealth taxes and excess profit taxes, alongside more progressive income taxes, are powerful tools to address inequality and its myriad harms, as well as being sources of government revenue. Additionally, government should act promptly to close tax loopholes and end the use of tax havens. These measures would create fiscal space for the kind of bold government initiatives that we need to support people and resurrect our economy coming out of the pandemic.
The pandemic teaches us that we are all in this together. The myth that the market justly rewards what is socially valuable must be abandoned. When the pandemic struck and we needed decisive action to keep the essential parts of our economy functioning, it was not wealthy people, via the market, who made that happen. It was government.
The same is even more true of the climate crisis. The government needs to spend large amounts of money to transition our economy to carbon neutrality. That money will inevitably trickle up, where it will unjustly empower the wealthy.
Measures like wealth taxes, excess profit taxes and closing tax loopholes will keep that money moving so that it can serve our shared interests. These must be key components of the fiscal tool kit as we deal with the aftermath of the pandemic and the ongoing climate crisis.
Thank you.
Angella MacEwen
View Angella MacEwen Profile
Angella MacEwen
2021-02-25 15:54
Thank you very much.
Thanks for inviting the Canadian Union of Public Employees to present to the committee. We're Canada’s largest union, with over 700,000 members. Our members work in a broad cross-section of the economy, such as health care, education, municipalities, libraries, universities, social services, public utilities, emergency services, transportation and airlines.
The current moment is unlike any previous economic recession or depression that Canada has seen. In this environment, it's essential that we continue to put absolute priority on the health of Canadians, which includes income supports to help households make ends meet and continued support of public services to meet their needs. This will not just help to contain the pandemic, but will also ensure that our economy, our small businesses and our communities can bounce back faster once the public health crisis has ended.
The federal government acted quickly to put supports in place at the beginning of the pandemic, such as the emergency response benefit, the wage subsidy and other liquidity programs. These made a real difference for millions of people in Canada. We think there is some room for improvement on the transparency, particularly of corporate supports. To ensure the effectiveness and fairness of public spending, we think the federal government should strengthen conditions and improve transparency and accountability.
Some of the ways in which you could do this include making public more information about how public money is being spent; include clauses that mandate labour protections for workers, including protections for benefits and the implementation of health and safety protocols; include penalties if these clauses are not upheld; and ensure protection for whistle-blowers. As well, where there is a union in the workplace, include them in the negotiations for wage subsidies and other supports. Also, for up to a year after corporations have received public subsidies or loans, we recommend that the government implement prohibitions on dividends, capital distributions and share repurchases and implement clear and transparent executive compensation restrictions.
In terms of stimulus, we think it's really important to prioritize spending. Even though the federal government is forecasting a significant deficit for this fiscal year, we don't think that's any reason to panic or pull back now. The rate for 30-year federal government bonds, as you all know, is at 2%, and 10-year bonds are below 1%. The Bank of Canada is supporting both federal and provincial governments by purchasing bonds directly and in secondary markets, ensuring that governments have a willing lender at low cost. This expands the supply of money that can be directed to public use. Arguably, the cost of borrowing compared to the return on the investment you make is a good fiscal guideline for this moment—better, perhaps, than debt-to-GDP ratio or other proposals currently on the table.
The federal government has the ability and the responsibility to shoulder the majority of the cost of the pandemic response and recovery, as well as a higher share of social spending going forward. Public investments in sectors such as health care, child care, livable communities and energy-efficient buildings will have a stronger impact on economic growth, alongside lower inequality and improved well-being. This recession is different. It has affected different industries, occupations and communities—especially women, low-income service workers, racialized workers and migrant workers—much more severely, so the federal government should take into account the ways that the pandemic has had an unequal impact and should design solutions in partnership with those hard-hit communities.
It seems clear to us that our economic recovery depends on the recovery of the care economy. Women’s economic participation plummeted to levels not seen in 30 years as COVID-19 shut down the economy and many workers were forced to leave their paid work to care for loved ones. Investment in the care economy, including health care, child care and social services, will have social and economic returns far higher than the current cost of borrowing. A vibrant, accessible care sector ensures that everyone can participate in the workforce, which will be essential throughout the economic recovery. Government investment in care improves labour market outcomes for women and improves productivity, allowing governments to recoup those upfront costs later on.
We note that quality public infrastructure is also essential for increasing the productivity of Canadian people and businesses. We strongly support increased funding for public transit, affordable housing and social, community and green infrastructure. All of these are important components of a healthy economic recovery.
We think the government, in order to fund the recovery, should consider tax fairness. Tax cuts since 2000 have reduced federal revenues by over $50 billion annually, and the major beneficiaries of these tax cuts have been large corporations and the wealthiest Canadians. These cuts have left a huge hole in federal budgets and had a ripple effect across provincial budgets as the federal government has stepped back from funding essential public services.
As an example, one of the first priorities of this government, after being re-elected in 2019, was to introduce another $6-billion tax cut that primarily benefited higher-income families. We recommend that the federal government reverse this regressive tax cut. That would save it $3 billion now and $6 billion per year when the cut was fully phased in.
The federal government, through the following fair tax measures, could increase revenues by over $50 billion without increasing tax rates on middle- and low-income Canadians. Restoring the federal corporate tax rate to 21% would raise $13 billion. Eliminating wasteful and regressive tax loopholes would raise another $14 billion. Cracking down on tax avoidance by taxing multinational corporations based on their real economic activities would raise over $8 billion. A wealth tax of 1% on estates over $20 million and an inheritance tax on estates over $5 million could raise another $8 billion. A financial activities tax on compensation and profits in the financial sector could raise $7 billion. As well, we recommend an excess profits tax to ensure that those who have been lucky enough to benefit from the pandemic, such as Canada’s big banks, which are announcing record profits, pay their fair share of the cost of supporting those who were not so lucky—those Dan Kelly was just talking about, who are about to go bankrupt.
Thank you very much.
Results: 31 - 45 of 138 | Page: 3 of 10

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

For more data options, please see Open Data