Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 138
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'll shift over to Corus Entertainment.
Mr. Reeb, you mentioned that you have to provide 30% of your revenues to Canadian content. I like that, because I like that the dollars are going to Canadian artists, producers and writers. If anything, I'd like to see a level playing field with some of the online foreign streaming giants. I want to hear your recommendations or thoughts on taxing these streaming giants.
Troy Reeb
View Troy Reeb Profile
Troy Reeb
2020-05-07 18:13
Thank you for acknowledging Nova Scotia Remembers and Stronger Together, which we were certainly proud to be a part of bringing to Canadian audiences.
You raised an excellent point about the disparity between the Canadian broadcasters, which face a myriad of regulations around the content they produce and air in their contributions to the Canadian sector, and those they compete against from outside our borders, whether it is Netflix, Disney+ or others. They don't pay taxes in Canada, don't employ Canadians, by and large, and they are free to drop programming into the Canadian marketplace and take dollars out of it without the same kinds of restrictions.
We think there needs to be a level playing field when it comes to taxation. We also think there needs to be a level playing field when it comes to the kinds of regulations that are placed upon the foreign streamers so that they need to compete under the same kinds of rules that we do. We're proud to contribute to the Canadian entertainment and information ecosystem, but we're doing it with one hand tied behind our back in that there are big foreign companies that are incredibly well capitalized that don't face the same kind of regulatory burdens that we do.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you.
Mr. Reeb, you talked about the web giants and the uneven playing field. We've certainly seen this right across the country, where Canadian businesses are competing with web giants that aren't paying income taxes, as you mentioned, and aren't making contributions to Canada.
How important is it for the Canadian government, coming through this pandemic and after this pandemic, to establish a level playing field so that Canadian businesses aren't competing with web giants that don't pay taxes, don't have payroll deductions and aren't contributing to Canada?
Troy Reeb
View Troy Reeb Profile
Troy Reeb
2020-05-07 18:27
Well, it's incredibly important, and the urgency of dealing with that file has only been heightened by the COVID-19 crisis, which is not only affecting Canadian broadcasters, but is affecting Canadian producers as well.
As you know, the independent production sector, the film and television production sector in Canada, is worth $12.8 billion a year. I have seen some estimates that tens of thousands of jobs are at risk in that production sector if things cannot be rectified. Some of that production certainly does come from Hollywood studios that do contract production in Canada, but they are producing American content in Canada. That's important economically, but it's not important culturally.
To rectify and level that playing field culturally will take an urgent overhaul of the Broadcasting Act, which the government had committed to. We would like to see it put back on the table as soon as possible, if not this year.
View Richard Martel Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Chair, it's an honour to sit in the House today and voice the concerns of the people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in these uncertain times.
Parliament never closed down before. This is a first. With the nation in crisis, Canadians looked to their leaders. Sadly, for several weeks, we were at an impasse with the government, and we couldn't move forward on the issues that matter to them.
I went through this as a coach. It's not easy to innovate and improve when you're surrounded by people who think exactly the same way you do. That's why we fought so hard to be here. We would have preferred to meet several times a week, but we'll take what we can get.
During question period, I raised several issues that affect both individuals and businesses. I realize these are exceptional circumstances, that we're all moving forward together in uncertainty, and that the government is doing its best to help people in need. However, I would like the government to co-operate more with the Conservative opposition, because I believe we could all contribute to finding positive solutions to the COVID-19 crisis. The government would do well to work with us for the good of Canadians without wasting parliamentarians' time on partisan issues like controlling law-abiding gun owners.
That being said, in the spirit of collaboration, I want to highlight certain problems with the government's usual programs. We hope to enhance these programs to help a larger number of Canadians. I think that parliamentarians could be the government's greatest allies in the fight against COVID-19. We're the ones who listen to the problems brought to us by individuals and businesses and help them find solutions.
At Service Canada, measures have been taken to better support us as parliamentarians. At the Canada Revenue Agency, it's a little harder, not least because the parliamentary line has been shut down. Right now, people are falling through the cracks, and we're the only ones who can help. We realize that the government is announcing programs quickly, without necessarily having all the details, in order to respond as fast as possible. However, many Canadians are being left behind.
I know that our public servants are working very hard these days, but I think they should have the right to interpret vague regulations somewhat broadly. For instance, I'm thinking of people who were forced to apply for EI because of the rail blockades and people with above-average foresight who self-isolated before March 15. Unlike most people, they're not eligible for the CERB.
With regard to help for individuals, I'm shocked that the government provided such generous support for students, the very people who work for our essential services during the summer. They're the least vulnerable to COVID-19, yet they're the ones getting the most encouragement to stay home. The government is pandering to the lowest common denominator instead of incentivizing work. It's clear that certain businesses will struggle and won't be able to rehire their usual staff. We absolutely need to add an incentive to work. For instance, why not offer more loans and grants to those who choose to work this summer? That's the kind of policy that will minimize aid for youth and reward those who worked on our farms, in our businesses or even in front-line health care.
I would also urge the government to work with the provinces to increase support for seniors during COVID-19. Seniors are in forced isolation and are the most vulnerable to this virus. Many are being forced to buy electronic devices, get Internet installed to stay connected with their families, and do their grocery shopping online for their own safety. This crisis is increasing their expenses. Will any help be planned for them?
Now I'll turn to businesses. The Canada emergency business account is a good program, but it's far too restrictive. Why doesn't this program do anything to help start-ups that are newly established, businesses that unfortunately didn't have time to spend $20,000 on payroll this year, businesses run with a personal chequing account, businesses whose employees are issued T4As or are on service contracts, or businesses that pay themselves in dividends or revenue sharing? There are many different ways to run a business in Canada. I'm sure the Minister of Finance is aware of that.
Many businesses are falling through the cracks, even though it would be easy to provide them with a $40,000 repayable loan. It wouldn't be hard to improve the program. This program could be the difference between surviving or not for some businesses.
Speaking of businesses surviving, many of them were hoping to get the emergency wage subsidy to keep their employees on the job and keep our economy going. I see two huge gaps in this program.
First of all, why are non-arm's length businesses not eligible for this assistance? That makes no sense. The government is literally interfering in the management of Canadian businesses. Whether they're arm's length or not, they need help.
Second, for non-arm's length employees, they're being asked to look at the average earnings between January 2020 and March 2020. Many businesses in the tourism sector, including campgrounds for instance, have lots of seasonal workers who don't work between January and March. Under this rule, they won't get any wage subsidy.
As a final point, I'm a little puzzled by the emergency commercial rent assistance. Why is it that the government thinks it can interfere in the lease between two businesses and force landlords to accept a 25% rent reduction? The government is playing a dangerous game. It should either help tenants with 50% or 75% of the rent, or provide loans to landlords until their tenants can pay their rent again. However, forcing landlords to lower rents completely undermines the rule of law. This could be a very slippery slope. I therefore urge the government to approach this with caution and review the program's structure.
I really hope the Liberal government will consider my suggestions. After all, the issues I've raised here are not unique to Chicoutimi—Le Fjord; they exist across the country. Although this is the right thing to do, these programs will be enormously expensive for Canada, and we can't afford to pass this debt on to future generations. Already our tax system isn't very competitive compared to the rest of North America. Our tax system is cumbersome and inefficient. I would therefore caution the government against raising taxes in any way that would further squeeze Canadians and hurt our economic recovery.
In terms of a recovery plan, I urge the Liberal government to expedite infrastructure projects, to make it easier to invest in Canada and, most importantly, to support the private sector natural resource development projects worth around $200 billion that are currently being studied in Canada, such as the GNL Québec project in my riding.
Before the COVID-19 crisis struck, GNL Québec enjoyed around 68% support in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. This major green project will be ready for construction in 2021 and will definitely give the Canadian economy a boost.
In my region, we've been less affected by COVID-19, as everyone has been reviewing their hygiene practices. This is a perfect opportunity to decentralize investments in large urban centres and move them towards the regions. With programs that are more flexible and better suited to rural realities, the regions could take a leadership role in Canada's economic recovery.
If another wave of this or another health crisis were to strike one day, the regions, which tend to be more isolated, could help ensure a strong economy if the urban centres have to come to a standstill. I therefore urge the government to be bold and support investment in the regions. That is how we'll be able to reach our full economic potential and quickly pay down the enormous debt weighing down our country.
The COVID-19 crisis is unlike anything we have ever seen in the 21st century. We understand that the government is in a difficult situation. Today I want to reach out to the government and encourage it to remain open and flexible and consider some of the proposals I've suggested. I am confident this would help many people and many businesses, and that these recovery plans would help the country get back on track quickly.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It was a privilege to share my constituents' concerns at this historic time.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Chair, many emergency economic measures have been adopted to date, but more needs to be done. Think about our seniors, lobster fishers, researchers and workers in the tourism, cultural, media, agricultural and forestry industries.
The Bloc Québécois expects the government to present an economic update before the summer. We are not talking about the budget, which we expect in the fall with a vision for the economic recovery. We want an update now because we want to get an overall idea of the situation, of the current circumstances and of all the emergency measures that have been adopted piecemeal.
We also expect the government to tell us its intentions for the summer. Will it extend the emergency measures? Will it extend them for specific sectors, such as tourism? Since the Minister of Finance has certain powers, we are asking him to share his intentions with the House.
In that regard, we are in the early stages of an economic recovery, but it may be slow going. Some restaurants will continue to make take-out meals and may soon open their dining rooms but only on Saturdays and Sundays. They will begin to hire their employees back, but only part time. It will be the same thing for hotel operators, who will also be hiring staff back part time. The same goes for SMEs and the manufacturing sector.
We can therefore expect a timid recovery with part-time workers. On one hand, that is encouraging because it marks the beginning of a return to a new normal. On the other hand, it creates new concerns because part-time workers may not earn enough to pay their bills but may earn too much to continue to receive the Canada emergency response benefit. I am therefore asking the government to adapt its emergency programs to take into account the part-time nature of the recovery. The health of our economy depends on it.
That is why we are asking the government to provide an economic update before the summer.
The time for the economic recovery will be in the fall. Hopefully the worst of the crisis will be over by then. It will be the beginning of a new normal. That is why the Bloc Québécois expects the government to table a budget when we return to the House in the fall to present its vision for that recovery. An economic recovery is an opportunity to lay the foundation for the economy of tomorrow. It is time to imagine the future we want. It is time to look forward.
Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter spoke of creative destruction. Economists use this expression to explain how economic crises are an opportunity to lay a new foundation for the economy of tomorrow.
Without in any way diminishing all of the problems this crisis has created, this pandemic also represents an opportunity to develop a vision for the economy of tomorrow, which should not cling to industries of the last century that are destined to disappear, with or without a pipeline. Tomorrow's economy involves embracing the clean energy transition and encouraging our businesses in that sector, which can shine on the international stage. Earth must make that change to respond to the environmental crisis. Quebec has everything it takes to succeed in that regard.
Tomorrow's economy involves supporting emerging technology companies and the innovation and research sector. It also means stepping up to help Canada's aerospace industry, which produces the cleanest aircraft in the world. Once again, Quebec has everything it takes to embrace this change. We will see whether the neighbouring government is up to the task.
The economic recovery also involves ensuring sustainable local agriculture and strong regional economies. That can be achieved through universal access to high-speed Internet. It is time high-speed Internet was considered an essential service, just as electricity was in the past.
The economic recovery involves supporting our culture and our artists. It also involves recognizing the role of our local and regional media outlets. In a time of fake news and conspiracy theories, reliable information must also be considered an essential service.
We also need to rethink our tax system. The report of the expert panel on sustainable finance provides food for thought in that regard. We need to think about that.
The current crisis brought to light the underfunding of the health care system. Ottawa originally committed to covering half the costs of the health care system. Today, it contributes only about 20% of the total cost and that contribution continues to drop every year. It is time for that to change. We need to be ready to deal with the next health crisis and, to do that, we need to strengthen our health care system.
The current crisis also reminds us just how unfair the tax system is. Everyone is paying his or her share except Toronto's big banks and the multinationals, which use tax havens. Now, in a time of crisis, they are asking the government for help, but the rest of the time, they are nowhere to be found. That needs to change.
We will have a $250-billion deficit. That means everyone needs to contribute and it will not longer be acceptable to use tax havens to avoid paying one's fair share of taxes.
In an interview with Gérald Fillion, tax expert André Lareau, who specializes in tax havens, indicated that $350 billion Canadian is sheltered in only 12 tax havens. Businesses use tax havens for activities related to financing operations and intellectual property.
Mr. Lareau also indicated that the government is aware of all the Canadian money that is being sheltered in tax havens but that it is not taking any action. He added that, given the current deficit, it is high time the government made a major change. He believes that, if we do not take this opportunity to change things, we will never change them. It is high time the government made things that are immoral illegal.
After the 2008 crisis, OECD countries created a working group to crack down on tax havens, or BEPS. We hope that the current crisis will be the time when the government makes the use of tax havens illegal. France, Denmark and Poland will not provide aid to companies that use tax havens. Belgium, Italy, the United Kingdom and the European Union are currently considering the issue. Here, nothing is being done.
As I said earlier, the Journal de Montréal reported that businesses using tax havens will finally be able to benefit from federal assistance. After suggesting that the government would be placing restrictions on that, the Prime Minister changed his mind. That is unacceptable.
Canada is lagging behind other OECD countries in the fight against tax havens, and even when it comes to the illegal use of tax havens.
The Minister of National Revenue can boast all she likes about how her agency is doing more, but the numbers do not add up. For example, the $1 billion announced to crack down on tax cheats includes the salary of the person who was hired to replace someone who was retiring. That is ridiculous. This is not new money. It is nothing like what is being done in the United States or Europe.
The government also has a lax approach when it comes to credit card companies. They are doing what they want and getting off scot-free. In Canada, interchange fees are 10 times higher than they are in Europe and Australia. The government needs to act as quickly as possible. Visa and MasterCard are taking too much of our businesses' profits. Use of these credit cards is widespread in this time of crisis. Action is urgently needed.
Even today, my nation must rely on Ottawa's goodwill. The room to manoeuvre is here. In times of crisis, a central government is in the best position to implement emergency and recovery measures. The Bloc Québécois is satisfied with the various measures taken to date. The Bloc is also proud that it was able to contribute, in its own way, in order to better meet the needs of Quebeckers. However, that does not change the fact that the administration of my nation depends on the goodwill of its neighbour.
We have to accept decisions that we find unsatisfactory. Take for example the underfunding of our health care system. Ottawa is pulling out at the expense of our seniors and our sick. High-speed Internet is another example. Since Ottawa is giving Bell and Rogers carte blanche, our regions are paying the price and are not developing their full potential. Finally, let us also think of our farmers, our artists, our seniors and our media outlets.
I spoke about the government's lax approach to credit cards and the legal use of tax havens. In 2020, we are still not masters in our own house.
That being said, I would like to recap. We are asking the government to present an economic update by this summer so that we will know what direction it is going in and we can get an overall idea of the situation. With regard to the vision for the recovery, we expect the government to present a budget when the House comes back in the fall.
View Kelly McCauley Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm going to move on, please.
Has Finance done any forecasting models with new revenue sources, such as higher personal, higher income or corporate taxes and changes to the GST?
Alison McDermott
View Alison McDermott Profile
Alison McDermott
2020-05-04 15:07
I'm sorry. Are you asking if we're contemplating increases in these taxes at this point?
View Kelly McCauley Profile
CPC (AB)
Have you done forecasting models?
Alison McDermott
View Alison McDermott Profile
Alison McDermott
2020-05-04 15:08
Well, generally over the year we do this kind of analysis, but nothing of late. Nothing of that nature is being contemplated.
Mr. Kelly McCauley: Thanks very much.
Marc Staniloff
View Marc Staniloff Profile
Marc Staniloff
2020-04-23 14:27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you.
My name is Marc Staniloff. I live in Calgary and I own Superior Lodging Corp.
My company owns the franchise rights in Canada for the following brands: Super 8 hotels, Travelodge Hotels, and Microtel Inns and Suites.
All of these brands are part of the Wyndham Hotel Group. There are a total of about 525 Wyndham hotels in Canada, of which 255 are under my franchise.
I want to point out that all the Super 8, Travelodge and Microtel hotels are all individually owned by local operators and are all Canadian owned. My company owns interest in about 30 of these different hotels.
Currently there are 100 Wyndham hotels closed in Canada, of which 20 are Super 8, 21 are Travelodge and two are Microtel. About 20% of the hotels under my brand are closed right now. The other brands—Marriott, Hilton, and all the other brands—have similar numbers.
About 20%-25% of hotels in Canada are currently closed.
Currently occupancy in the hotels that are open is running at about 9%. That gives you the context of the current state of the industry in Canada.
In addition to the COVID crisis, we are also getting slammed by the oil and gas markets in the resource-rich communities where we have hotels.
We have several big issues today.
The first is that we need to get businesses open as soon as possible. I know this cannot happen all at once, and I think it needs to be on a measured basis, both in regions and in sectors, depending on the different companies and businesses.
As well, we need to get people travelling again, both by car and by plane.
Then the next big issue is what this recovery will look like. This is going to be a very long haul, and many of our businesses might not make it through.
We think we need to ensure that our sectors can fully benefit from the wage subsidy program and we need to recognize that the recovery of our sector will likely be slow. Thus, we need to extend the duration of the wage subsidy for businesses that will take longer to recover. For example, until revenue losses are below 30%, the subsidies should stay in effect. This will ensure that we rehire our staff and keep them.
We also need to make adjustments to the loan criteria so that banks actually approve us. Right now it's way too risky and the process is way too cumbersome.
First, we need to find a way to have the loans based on the property rather than at the level of a corporate entity. A number of corporate entities own a number of hotels, and as a result of the way the loan process is set up, if they own 10 hotels, they are only entitled to one loan.
Second, the loan process is such that the borrowers have to qualify for the loan. Hotels today are not going to be able to qualify, and as this goes along, they will be less and less likely to be able to do so. We need these loans to be simple and based on a simple checklist and verification of solvency as of March 15.
We need relief, and by that I mean interest forgiveness. I know a couple of the other witnesses have mentioned the same thing. We cannot just pile on more debt and kick the can down the road. This is a recipe for disaster, so for the loans I just mentioned, there has to be a forgivable portion and there has to be a formula for that.
For us to have a solid recovery package, we feel we need the government to provide marketing funds for Destination Canada to fully advertise Canada. We want people who live in Canada to travel in Canada.
In addition, we need a subsidy to support low room rates to incentivize travel. The GST could be eliminated for an interim period, and the deductibility of entertainment expenses could be considered.
Thank you.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much.
The government is likely to run a deficit of around $200 billion this year. Canada is the second most-indebted country in the G7, if you take into account public and private debt combined. Unlike many countries in the OECD that were paying off debt in the last four years, Canada was adding to it. Eventually, the bill is going to come due for all of this. We'll be even more indebted than we were going in.
Do any of the witnesses want to comment on how they are forecasting their future tax bills to pay for the enormous government deficits that are not only happening now but that preceded this crisis itself?
David Lefebvre
View David Lefebvre Profile
David Lefebvre
2020-04-23 15:47
I can give a quick answer to your question, Member of Parliament Poilievre.
It's an excellent question, because of course there's going to be a bill with this, but right now, in terms of emergency measures and making sure businesses stay on, it also makes sure that some taxes are going to be paid and that some things are going to be contributed by our industry, which is something that is important. We represent something like 4% of the GDP, which is also a massive amount of taxes, both at the corporate level and also at the personal level, which our employees and our owners pay.
Restaurants Canada definitely has been an advocate for progrowth measures, both budgetary and in terms of investments, and those measures definitely will need to accompany any kind of recovery that will need to be put forward. We recognize that. One way we think we can do it is to make sure that as many of us survive....
Jack Mintz
View Jack Mintz Profile
Jack Mintz
2020-04-03 15:49
I think that when we come out of this, we will have destroyed some of.... This is a huge supply shock on the economy. We're also dealing with a reduced amount of supply and the misallocation of resources, to the extent that there are bankruptcies, firms going out of business, etc. That's going to require policies that allow for growth, and that goes back to looking at tax regulatory reforms and things like that. To the extent that it can help build up our GDP growth, then it's going to be more looking at tax revenue coming back.
At the same time, governments are going to have to watch their spending in the future and not build in major expenditures that will impact the economy. There will be a tendency for governments to spend more money as a way of building up consumption, but that's exactly the wrong kind of policy as we come out of that, because this was a supply shock and we have to deal with the supply problems that are going to be evolving over time.
Jack Mintz
View Jack Mintz Profile
Jack Mintz
2020-03-12 17:00
There are two places that I can think of. One is Hong Kong, which lately is having its own challenges, but if you look at the history of Hong Kong, it's had a tremendous amount of success. In fact, it moved away from manufacturing, because a lot of the manufacturing industry moved into China, to become a regional financial power instead. In fact, manufacturing jobs went from half the GDP in Hong Kong in the 1950s to, by the time you hit 1995-2000, down to only 5% of GDP in Hong Kong.
They did a very good transformation doing that. They had an amazingly strict policy about no business subsidies, no tax credits and no special concessions to any business; instead, they kept rates very low. In fact, they had a very low corporate income tax rate; I think it was 15% when I was there in the early 2000s. They had a very low personal income tax rate. They had no withholding taxes, and anyone who tried to suggest having a special incentive was immediately clamped down on, and this was a government with the full backing of the public, making it clear that this was not the way that we're going to go. It was, by the way, a very different strategy from what Singapore did, and Singapore grew quite a bit.
The other one that is close to that model is Ireland. Ireland started off with a 10% tax rate on manufacturing and certain financial services, and then they decided to broaden it to everybody, and they had a 12.5% corporate income tax rate, which is still there today. They did have some R and D tax credits, so there's a little support for innovation that way. I'm not sure about the grant side; they may have done some things on the grant side.
Generally, Ireland had a philosophy of getting their tax rates really low. Ireland is a remarkable story, because when you go back to 1960s, it was a poor cousin of Europe, and it had an immigration outflow. The best people were moving away to either the United States or to Great Britain. It had very poor growth, but they pursued the strategy on the tax side and put money into infrastructure—that was the other important thing—and education. They strongly believed in trying to get their population educated, because people only had educations up to high school. They not only made sure people had their high school education, but they actually had Bernie Sanders-type free tuition for all university and post-secondary education because they wanted people to get skills and broaden their skills.
What happened, of course, is that Ireland's growth was phenomenal. In fact, it became the fastest-growing country in Europe. Companies were flocking to Ireland, partly because there were good tax-planning strategies, but it wasn't just that. Pharmaceutical companies came to Ireland; all sorts of different ones came, and the strategy really worked. As a result, they reversed the immigration flow. They did go through a very tough time with a financial crisis, because the banks weren't as well regulated as in Canada, so they suffered from that, but they have come back. In fact, the interesting thing is that they have been one of the fastest-growing countries since 2010 in Europe and North America among OECD countries compared to a lot of others.
It has been a remarkable story, and it does show you that good macroeconomic policies, infrastructure, education—this is on the spending side—and a really smart tax system can go a long way in building a much better economy.
Results: 106 - 120 of 138 | Page: 8 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