Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 46 - 60 of 138
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to all our witnesses for being here today and providing their very valuable testimony. We hope you and your families continue to stay safe during this pandemic. We're now in the second wave and, tragically, anticipating a third wave coming soon.
My first questions will be for Ms. MacEwen and Ms. Abou-Dib.
I want to ask you this because you both spoke about the issue of inequality and addressing inequalities in a meaningful way. We went through the Second World War and had a crisis that was similar in many ways, being both economic and social. At the same time, we had in place wealth and excess profit taxes.
The banks this week have announced massive profits, now clearing $40 billion and going towards $50 billion, during the pandemic, and they received $750 billion of liquidity support in the same period. That happened within days. We've seen Canada's billionaires increase their wealth by over $60 billion. The web giants, the largest corporations in Canada, don't pay taxes.
How important is this issue of dealing with tax fairness? How essential is that to putting in place the other measures you're both speaking to, which help to address the growing and obscene inequality in our country?
I'll start with Ms. MacEwen.
Angella MacEwen
View Angella MacEwen Profile
Angella MacEwen
2021-02-25 16:44
This is a question I've been thinking a lot about. I know the federal government can continue to borrow money to fund the stimulus we need right now, but eventually we'll need to increase tax fairness. The federal government will need to increase revenue. You have public sector workers at all levels who have seen this game play out before, and they're all afraid of the coming austerity. They're all worried about the eventual story we're going to hear, that we all need to tighten our belts and that governments are like households, which they aren't. A government budget is completely different from a household budget.
We should absolutely not be worried about going into deficit, but we need to think about inequality in terms of the way our tax system fosters increased inequality and changes the decisions corporations make on where they're spending their money. We've seen a bunch of corporations take money from the federal government, continue to pay out dividends and have huge share buybacks, because what they want to do right now is to boost their share prices, which boosts executive compensation. In the middle of this crisis, which is already hitting low-income workers and small businesses the hardest, our tax system is structured in such a way that the biggest and the wealthiest can leverage that and make even more money.
We need to start changing the legislation in the system so we can both improve the structures that create inequality—so that we'll reduce it—and fund the types of things Mariam and I were both talking about to create a more equal and more prosperous economy going forward.
Mariam Abou-Dib
View Mariam Abou-Dib Profile
Mariam Abou-Dib
2021-02-25 16:46
Of course I agree with Angella on the points she raised. The other thing to consider is closing the loopholes that benefit mostly large corporations and the very wealthy. We're not talking here about small businesses and the local businesses that are represented here. We're talking about large corporations. These large corporations have a great ability for tax avoidance. That's something we need to really look at and consider. There have been tax cuts for large profitable corporations spanning the last 20 years, which we should really be re-examining.
Finally, we also need to look at how to generate additional revenue as we transition into a recovery, by implementing something like a wealth tax, again for the very wealthy. Restoring corporate tax rates to even 2010 levels would make a significant difference. Those are the kinds of things we should be examining when it comes to fair taxation.
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
Perfect.
I'm looking at tax changes that have been made from 2017, 2018, 2019, and to grow our processing capacity in Canada we're going to have to make some changes to our tax structure.
As tax specialists, are there any specific recommendations you could give to this committee that we could bring forward that would incentivize growing our processing and capacity sector in Canada?
Kelleen Tait
View Kelleen Tait Profile
Kelleen Tait
2021-02-18 16:27
Absolutely. I think there are many opportunities to provide funding to some of these organizations so they can continue to access and innovate, as we've talked about. Some of those, like the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, can be overly complex, and at times our industry has noticed some poor success rates at obtaining funding through that program due to the complexity, so just understanding that maybe a more predictable system and one that is easily understood by the producers going into it....
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
I think that's a very valid point. When we did the BRM report, lots of producers and lots of agriculture witnesses talked about how complicated the tax process is.
Briefly, if you could, how could we simplify that process and the tax structure in the ag sector, especially when it comes to incentives, like you said, and tax credits for bringing more capacity to Canada?
Kelleen Tait
View Kelleen Tait Profile
Kelleen Tait
2021-02-18 16:28
Absolutely. I think we also need to refocus on the definition of innovation and research and development. Oftentimes, our producers are taking new techniques, new to Canada or new to their industry, and they're perhaps not being given the credit for those under those programs.
As Glenn had alluded to, these don't need to be new, groundbreaking technologies. They need to be ones that help with the gross margin, the operational side, and can provide benefit to the producers.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I would like to acknowledge the officials from the Canada Revenue Agency and from the Department of Finance, Ms. Laroche, Mr. Marsland and their colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Marsland, for beginning your presentation in French. We're very grateful.
Ms. Laroche, as the Chair pointed out, it seems that you have a weak Internet connection. We can't always understand your answers very well. Nevertheless, I have two questions for you. First, however, I will make a brief comment.
The Robillard Commission was obviously very partisan. The Liberal government and the opposition parties dismissed that recommendation.
Ms. Laroche, in your presentation, you said: Convincing our partners to make changes to include other subnational tax administrations is not a given.
Let's take as an example the Canada-United States Convention with Respect to Taxes, which provides for the exchange of tax information between competent authorities.
Paragraph (g) and subparagraph (i) of article III state the following:
g) The term competent authority means: (i) In the case of Canada, the Minister of National Revenue or his authorized representative;
So with respect to agreements, the Minister of National Revenue decides to whom she gives authorization. The same goes for all tax treaties and tax information exchange agreements. All the minister has to do is inform the United States or other countries.
What would stop her from doing so? Does she have reason to believe that foreign countries would refuse to honour the treaty they signed because they do not like the person the minister authorized to speak?
Mireille Laroche
View Mireille Laroche Profile
Mireille Laroche
2021-02-16 18:34
Thank you for the question.
I will respond, but I will also invite my colleague Mr. Marsland to comment, since the Department of Finance negotiates these treaties. Our role is to administer them. We each play a role in this area.
Our interaction with foreign authorities is governed by over 100 international agreements. With respect to your interpretation, I'm not in a position to say whether or not the United States would accept our delegation. That is a question we would have to ask them. Customs and traditions dictate that it usually remains at the national level. So these are national agreements, not subnational agreements.
If Mr. Marsland wishes to add something, I will give him the floor.
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2021-02-16 18:35
Maybe I can answer.
I will give you some context. I think it would be useful.
Canada is a signatory to approximately 120 international tax treaties and information exchange agreements. Close to a third of those agreements contain clauses that, in certain situations, may allow the federal competent authority—the Canada Revenue Agency, in this case—to exchange some information with a subnational authority, to the extent that determination of a basic change at the federal level has direct implications at the provincial level. Exceptions in some of the existing treaties permit such an exchange.
These exceptions were created and agreed to by the various parties, and were based on the way the current federal-provincial tax system is set up. In the event of a decentralization of the federal system that would give administrative power to one province, it's not clear whether the rules of the treaties would be interpreted in the same way. It could require further negotiations.
As I said before, this applies to about a third of our agreements. The other agreements contain no similar exceptions.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much. My apologies for the lateness of my arrival. It seems that events are conspiring against my participation in this committee meeting. We had a fire alarm where I am right now, so we had to exit the building.
That being said, we actually explored the possibility of my joining by phone outside. That was technologically complicated, it seems.
I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and Haudenosaunee peoples.
I want to start by acknowledging that, four years ago today, a gunman took the lives of six people at the Quebec City mosque and seriously injured 19 others. They were Muslim fathers, husbands, loved ones and friends. Their sudden and tragic deaths were heartbreaking not just for their families, but also for Muslim communities around the world and all Canadians.
Mr. Chair, I am very happy to be appearing before you again today.
With me is the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage, Hélène Laurendeau; as well as Jean-Stéphen Piché, senior assistant deputy minister.
The pandemic continues to weigh heavily on Canada's heritage, arts, culture and sport communities. We are all committed to helping them get through the crisis and supporting them in their recovery.
I want to thank the committee for pursuing it's important work despite the difficult circumstances. Your study on the challenges faced by the arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors caused by COVID-19 will be a valuable asset in these efforts. Canadian Heritage was pleased to participate.
I would also like to acknowledge the excellent work you have done on Bill C-5, which seeks to establish the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation as a statutory holiday.
When we met for the main and supplementary budget estimates review, I had just tabled Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. It will be referred to your committee shortly, and we will welcome your input on this legislation as well.
As I indicated before the holidays, I look forward to better understanding your perspectives and how the bill could be improved.
Like many Canadians, our government is concerned about the current imbalance that favours the web giants at the expense of Canadian businesses. The economic and social stakes resulting from this situation are too important for us to stand idly by.
That is why the Speech from the Throne mentioned that things must change to ensure more equitable sharing of revenues with our Canadian creators and media.
Mr. Chair, our government is committed to regulating digital platforms and putting them to work for Canadians. One of the objectives of Bill C-10 is to require those platforms to invest in our creators, our music and our stories, which could lead to more than $800 million of additional money being invested here in Canada every year.
This bill has been positively received by the community and stakeholders. I must share the credit for this success with the employees of Canadian Heritage, as it would not have been possible without their supporting work. I would like to salute their expertise and professionalism. As you know, it is up to elected officials to lead the development of public policy, and our government has been very clear on how we want to tackle social media platforms and web giants. The Canadian Heritage team is providing excellent evidence-based support in this regard.
Our government will also complement these efforts by levelling the playing field on the tax front, as we proposed in the 2020 fall economic statement. Digital businesses will now be required to collect and remit the GST. We will also ensure that digital corporations pay their fair share of taxes in respect of their activities in Canada.
I must also note that we are currently studying a made-in-Canada formula to ensure fair remuneration of news publishers by online platforms, similar to what you might have seen move ahead in certain other countries.
We have seen during the pandemic that digital platforms are more than ever at the heart of communications between Canadians, and are keeping us connected. Unfortunately, some Internet users are also exploiting these platforms maliciously to spread hate, racism and child pornography. There is currently illegal content being uploaded and shared online, to the detriment of Canadians and our society. This is simply unacceptable.
My apologies, Mr. Chair, but I'm having some technical problems.
Manuel Arango
View Manuel Arango Profile
Manuel Arango
2020-12-10 17:44
Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.
I'm pleased to be with you today virtually to outline the Heart and Stroke Foundation's priorities for the 2021 federal budget.
The first issue I'd like to deal with is pharmacare. Heart and Stroke is seeking concrete steps on the implementation of a national, universal pharmacare program. Prior to the pandemic, 7.5 million people in Canada had inadequate or no prescription drug coverage whatsoever. Furthermore, 16% of Canadians went without medication for heart disease, cholesterol or hypertension because of the cost. Between March and April, roughly 3 million people lost their jobs. Consequently, it is highly likely that many Canadians lost access to their employer-provided drug coverage.
Pandemic-related unemployment has disproportionately impacted women, recent immigrants and racialized persons. Women are often in more precarious work situations, including part-time positions that do not offer drug plans.
The pandemic has once again demonstrated that the patchwork of 100 public and 100,000 private drug plans in Canada cannot be relied on when times get tough.
Heart and Stroke was pleased to see the commitment to implement a national pharmacare program in the latest Speech from the Throne and in the fall economic statement. It's also my understanding that the Prime Minister, after today's first ministers meeting, reiterated his commitment and indicated he is working with the provinces toward the implementation of pharmacare.
We urge consultations with those provinces that are willing so that a preliminary common formulary of essential medicines can be developed ideally by July 2021 or at the latest by January 2022, as was indicated in the Hoskins report. We also strongly urge for the inclusion of $3.5 billion in funding in budget 2021 to support initial implementation of this work. This figure was also indicated in the Hoskins report.
The second issue is that, as the federal government seeks to identify new ways of generating revenues, Heart and Stroke recommends implementing a licensing fee on tobacco manufacturers as well as a federal tax on vaping products. A licensing fee could raise $66 million annually and would be a means of ensuring that tobacco companies pay their fair share to cover the costs of tobacco control measures and of tobacco-related diseases in Canada. In terms of youth vaping, we all know that a new generation of young people are becoming addicted to nicotine. Research shows that taxation is one of the most powerful levers to prevent vaping uptake among young people. B.C. and Nova Scotia are already taxing vaping products, while provinces like Ontario have called on the federal government to ensure that a tax is applied across the country. We're asking that the federal government introduce a minimum 20% value-added tax to be levied on vaping products to make these products less accessible and affordable to youth.
The third issue is that Canada's health charities continue to seek federal investments to assist in their recovery. The outbreak of the pandemic has resulted in a dramatic increase in demand for health charity services from those living with chronic diseases like heart disease and stroke. At the same time, fundraising revenues have been halved across the sector.
While the Canada emergency wage subsidy has helped us retain some employees, other measures such as the emergency community support fund have not been truly accessible to Heart and Stroke and many other charities. In November the Health Charities Coalition of Canada renewed its request for assistance from the federal government. We are collectively seeking $131 million over two years to support those living with diseases in Canada, including $28 million to keep up with increased demands for patient support programs and $101 million to protect investments in lifesaving research.
Finally, the last issue is that Heart and Stroke is also asking the federal government to renew funding to its federally funded women's heart and brain health research initiative. This initiative is critical, because we have significant gaps in women's diagnosis, treatment and recovery. This is in part due to decades of heart disease and stroke research based solely on men. Budget 2016 included a five-year, $5 million investment in our women's research initiative. This enabled the funding of 26 research projects across Canada and the creation of a research network connecting over 200 individuals across the country. We are now seeking a renewed and augmented commitment from the federal government to expand this vital work.
Finally, we are calling on the federal government to act on its commitments from the 2015 election platform, the 2019 federal budget and several mandate letters to the health minister to implement front-of-package nutrition labelling regulations and restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods to kids.
Thank you.
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
2020-12-10 18:18
One of your recommendations was on the youth vaping epidemic in our country. There was an increase of over 100% in the use of vaping among older teens in Canada between 2017 and 2019. Vaping products damage developing brains and youth vaping can increase the odds of tobacco smoking.
In your pre-budget submission, you call on the federal government to introduce a 20% tax on vaping products. There are some provinces that have already begun a levying taxes on these products, and others are studying the possibility.
Do we have any data on how these taxes have affected the sale of vaping products, specifically to young people?
Manuel Arango
View Manuel Arango Profile
Manuel Arango
2020-12-10 18:19
What we do know certainly is that taxes and price impacts behaviour for all types of different behaviours. For example, taxation is actually one of the strongest most powerful tools that we have at our disposal to address tobacco smoking. Early results to date indicate that it's also useful with vaping.
The reality is that it doesn't matter what product it is. If you put a high enough tax on any product, you will curtail behaviour. It's just a basic part of economic theory. Price has an impact on behaviour, and if we put sufficient taxes on vaping products you will definitely, 100% see reductions in vaping consumption.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to all of our witnesses. I'm going to endeavour to get through all four because you have all brought a lot of very important things to bear, so I'd ask you to be relatively brief, at 45 to 50 seconds each.
I'll start with Ms. Tiessen. Thank you very much for being so eloquent about the importance of social infrastructure, pharmacare, child care. We know that for every buck we spend on childcare we get $6 back in economic stimulus.
Isn't it important as well to take care of the revenue side? I'm thinking of a wealth tax and an excess profits tax like we had in the second world war, which you referenced, cracking down on overseas tax havens that cost us $25 billion a year, and making the big web giant companies actually pay corporate income tax so that we have the wherewithal to make these investments and to build back better, as you stated so eloquently.
Results: 46 - 60 of 138 | Page: 4 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