Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 91 - 105 of 362
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-05-04 14:20 [p.6620]
Mr. Speaker, we always rely on the science, which is of course evolving all the time. We will always stress that people should get vaccinated as quickly as possible. Health Canada has approved all the vaccines we use in Canada and has deemed them to be safe and effective.
I continue to encourage everyone to get vaccinated because it is only by vaccinating the entire population, or as much of it as possible, that we can leave the COVID-19 pandemic behind us.
View Erin O'Toole Profile
CPC (ON)
View Erin O'Toole Profile
2021-05-04 14:20 [p.6620]
Mr. Speaker, there are three tools we need to fight a pandemic: vaccines, rapid tests and information. The government has been failing on all three, and the Prime Minister is causing confusion again this week.
For months, Canadians have been told to get the first vaccine available to them. Today, the Prime Minister refused to confirm that advice on 10 different occasions. Canadians deserve clarity from the government. Is there a preferred type of vaccine?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-05-04 14:21 [p.6620]
Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that Canadians get the facts. That is why we continue to update them on scientific recommendations and the recommendations of doctors. However, the reality is, and I will say it again, as I have said it many times this morning and as I have been saying for months, that the most important thing is for Canadians to get vaccinated with the first vaccine offered to them. That is how we will get through this.
Every vaccine for use in Canada has been judged safe and effective by Health Canada. We all need to get vaccinated to get through this pandemic.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, at a press conference today, the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada said that further advice would be forthcoming regarding second doses for people who had received one dose of AstraZeneca.
Will this new advice mean that Canadians who have received one dose of AstraZeneca may have to obtain one or more doses of Pfizer or Moderna to achieve full immunity?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has a hard time understanding this, but this is a brand new pandemic, a brand new virus, and certainly the science continues to evolve and provide us advice and evidence on how best to protect Canadians.
It is important that Canadians accept the first vaccination that is offered to them. All vaccines that are in use in Canada are approved as safe and effective. We can be part of the solution. We can protect lives and we can stop the spread.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, when the minister patronizes me, she patronizes every Canadian who has the same question.
The concept of vaccine mixing will be confusing to some Canadians, and the chief public health officer opened this front this morning.
Therefore, I will ask her again. For Canadians who have already received one dose of AstraZeneca, should they wait for another dose of AstraZeneca no matter what the time delay or does the health minister expect Canadians might be told they can or should have one or more doses of Pfizer or Moderna to achieve full immunity?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, first, I will reiterate for Canadians that all vaccines that are approved for use in Canada are safe and effective. In fact, I was so excited to receive my first dose of AstraZeneca just over a week ago. I certainly encourage my friends, my family and all the people in my community to accept the first vaccination that is offered.
We know that vaccines save lives, and they also contribute to stopping the spread. We can see the finish line. We can see the finish line here and across the world. Vaccination is important, and we will continue to provide Canadians with the best science as it evolves.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, the vaccine rollout in Canada is a perfect example of the Prime Minister's lack of leadership. He boasted about having the best portfolio of vaccines in the world, but that was never true.
Yesterday, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization confirmed that Canadians should wait for one of the two preferred vaccines, if they can. Canadians are hearing two messages: get vaccinated and wait to get vaccinated.
In the meantime, the Prime Minister is dragging his feet. When will he demonstrate the leadership expected of him and tell Canadians the truth?
View Patty Hajdu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, our government has been very clear. All vaccines approved for use in Canada are safe and effective, both for stopping the spread of COVID and for saving lives.
It is very unfortunate to hear the member opposite try to incite fear in Canadians. I would encourage Canadians who have questions about vaccinations to speak to their health care professionals, to speak to the pharmacists, to speak to the vaccinators across the country who are taking such great care and working so quickly. In fact, 14 million Canadians have received their first dose.
Vaccination is our path forward, and I am so thrilled and honoured to be vaccinated myself.
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
2021-05-03 11:16 [p.6497]
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-237, the national framework for diabetes act.
I would like to thank the member for Brampton South for bringing it forward and for all her advocacy. From the time we were both elected in 2015, I have participated alongside her. We were both on the health committee when it came up with recommendations to the government on what it should do about diabetes. It is a serious issue for 11 million Canadians who have diabetes or prediabetes. That report was important.
The hon. member has also done numerous other things to raise awareness of diabetes on the Hill. I can remember an event for all the MPs to get tested, to understand how they could see the risk factors for diabetes and find out whether or not they actually had prediabetes or diabetes. That was great. There was another time when we brought in a mobile unit that had the ability to test and treat. These mobile units are very important here in Canada, especially in rural and remote places where, in many cases, it is very difficult to get access to a physician and the medical care that is so important to people who are living with diabetes.
For that, I congratulate the member. I am happy to see this bill being supported unanimously at committee, along with the support for the amendment that the Conservatives brought forward.
For those who are not aware of the different types of diabetes, 11 million Canadians have diabetes or prediabetes. Type 1 diabetics are people who cannot produce insulin, and there are 1.1 million of them. In order to get the insulin they need, they need to either inject it or use insulin pumps, a new technology that has really upgraded the quality of life for individuals. However, those pumps are $7,000 or $8,000, so affordability is a key issue there.
The most common type of diabetes is type 2. These individuals cannot use the insulin they are producing, or they are not producing enough insulin, and there are 9.9 million Canadians in this category. There are things that can lessen the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, including healthy eating and regular exercise. However, once people have this condition, they are going to require insulin therapy, medications and sometimes glucose monitoring. There have been good advances in the technology of glucose monitoring that have really improved the quality of life. Again, there is an affordability issue for some.
Canada began this 100 years ago, with Banting and Best and insulin, and we have continued to excel in technology in this area.
The bill itself is a national framework, and as part of that it is going to bring prevention and treatment. There will be training and an emphasis on educational needs, which I think is important. The more people know about diabetes, the risks and how they can prevent or minimize the impact, the better. There is also an important part on research and data collection. The government, over decades, has done excellent work to support diabetes research in Canada, and that needs to continue, along with the data collection.
The other part of the bill is information and knowledge sharing, related to preventing and treating diabetes. This will be important because this is a disease that can develop into other complicated conditions. Kidney disease is a common outcome for those who are at risk and who cannot control their insulin levels. Many have foot and leg problems that can result in amputation. There are eye diseases, and increase in heart attack and stroke. All of these issues are not just tragic for the individual, but also a cost to the health care system.
The parliamentary secretary previously made a comment that bringing in this national framework is not just the right thing to do, but it is also a cost-benefit. We know that if diabetes is not adequately controlled in an individual, an emergency room call is $1,500 and an amputation is $90,000. All of these things are incredibly costly to the health care system.
Although some concerns have been raised about whether or not the bill will be a problem with provincial jurisdiction, I would say that the provinces absolutely are open to receiving more federal funding to cover things and to do the right thing to prevent more expensive conditions from developing.
In fact, my own national framework on palliative care is a great example of how the federal government can work alongside the provinces to provide the supplemental things that do not exist at the provincial level and to have the provinces use their funding to accelerate the plan. With the palliative care framework, many things related to education, research and data collection, as in this bill, were put in place, but then the provinces also came alongside with money for hospice and for training paramedics and extending all kinds of things that have resulted in more people having access. My hope is that we will see the same thing with this bill. It is important.
The amendment that the Conservatives brought had to do with the disability tax credit. Members may remember that a few years ago there was a change made by CRA and 80% of people who previously were approved for the disability tax credit, which helps people pay for the medications and supplies they need as people living with diabetes, now became 80% rejected, and it was a long period of time of outcry from the opposition parties before the government set that right.
To be fair, the intent of the government was that if people were not eligible for the tax credit, they also were not eligible for the disability pension plan. That plan had been in effect for 10 years, and each individual who qualified had about $150,000 in the account, so there was a bit of a nefarious attempt to try to take that money away, which fortunately we were able to correct and get that in place.
Our amendment was to make sure that the CRA is administering the disability tax credit fairly and that the disability tax credit is designed to help as many persons with diabetes as possible and is achieving its objectives. This will provide a bit of oversight to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again, and that will be very important.
What the bill does not do is provide some of the other funding that will be needed, and some of it has been talked about already. Diabetes Canada does an amazing job of making people aware, helping people living with diabetes, and providing tools and training, but it has a 360° initiative, calling on the federal government for quite a number of years, from the time I was the shadow health minister, and it has not been funded at any point. We need to see the government seriously consider, with 11 million Canadians living with this condition, that we have to be preventive in nature.
There are a lot of initiatives that also could be supported, like Participaction, getting people more fit. If we can get children more fit and eating more nutritiously, this is a key factor in preventing people from having type 2 diabetes, so that is an action that the government could take.
When it comes to pharmacare, the Liberals have been talking about this since 1992. Many provinces have plans already in place, and there is a very small number of Canadians who do not have coverage, but in particular there are people with diabetes who are not able to afford their medications. It is a larger cost to the system overall and something that should be addressed and could be quickly addressed through organizations like Diabetes Canada.
In terms of this framework, obviously I am a passionate advocate as well for eliminating diabetes and doing everything we can to help those individuals. I, as well as the Conservative Party, will be supporting this private member's bill. The member is to be commended for her continued advocacy and for her persistence in bringing more and more good ideas to the table. We can see from the reaction of the various parties that everyone wants to work together, alongside the provinces and territories and our indigenous organizations, to make sure that all people living with diabetes receive the help they need.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-03 11:43 [p.6501]
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-237, an act to establish a national framework for diabetes. Once again, I applaud my colleague and friend from Brampton South who has been a staunch advocate for such an important issue that affects millions of Canadians.
Having a national framework for diabetes is long overdue. I want to take the time, first and foremost, to recognize the need. It is important to note the impact diabetes has on the health of over three million people in Canada. Including Canadians who are prediabetic, that number is closer to 10 million-plus, keeping in mind our population of 37.5 million people today.
As a government, we continue working with our partners, including provinces and territories, indigenous organizations, stakeholders and organizations such as Diabetes Canada, to strengthen the efforts that support diabetes prevention and care for all Canadians. For me, it is about prevention and treatment, and there is so much we can do.
I have had the opportunity to speak on this before. I want to emphasize Diabetes Canada and the fantastic work it does. In fact, people can get all the relevant information they need from it, not to mention all the things they can do to improve the quality of their lives or, in some cases, minimize the negative impacts diabetes has on people through healthy living and so forth. If they go to diabetes.ca, there is ample information.
From my perspective, Diabetes Canada clearly shows leadership. As a national organization, it can assist regional organizations. My colleague has hit this right on, that there is a need for a national perspective, a national framework designed to support and improve Canadians' access to information on diabetes prevention and treatment. This bill is all about that. It is about working with provinces and territories, indigenous leaders, communities, different stakeholders, bringing them together and making a real difference. I am hopeful that we can pass the bill.
There are two types of diabetes, and I got this information from the diabetes.ca website, which contains quality of information. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease and is also known as an insulin-dependent diabetes. People with type 1 diabetes are not able to produce their own insulin and cannot regulate their blood sugar because their body is attacking the pancreas. The website states:
Roughly 10 per cent of people living with diabetes have type 1, insulin-dependent diabetes. Type 1 diabetes generally develops in childhood or adolescence, but can also develop in adulthood. People with type 1 need to inject insulin or use an insulin pump to ensure their bodies have the right amount of insulin.
There is so much we can be doing from a national perspective by encouraging, promoting and supporting, in whatever ways we can, a national strategy.
I commend my colleague from Brampton and those individuals who were there to support her initiative to bring the bill to the floor of the House of Commons. I trust and hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House will see fit to pass this bill as soon as possible, maybe even today.
View Len Webber Profile
CPC (AB)
View Len Webber Profile
2021-05-03 11:48 [p.6501]
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-237, which proposes a national framework for diabetes.
The bill has been brought forward by our colleague, the member for Brampton South, and I would like to take a moment to comment on her dedication to seeing this bill passed and her overall concern for the health of Canadians.
The member, who I served with for many years on the health committee, has always been one of the most non-partisan and collegial members of the committee. Her sincere desire to improve health outcomes for Canadians has always been her underlying motivation, and it has been an absolute pleasure to work with her on that committee.
The situation with diabetes in Canada is truly shocking. About three million Canadians live with diabetes. One in three children and one in 10 adults live with the disease. People with diabetes are over three times more likely to be hospitalized with cardiovascular disease, 12 times more likely to be hospitalized with end-stage renal disease and almost 20 times more likely to be hospitalized for non-traumatic lower limb amputation compared to the general population. Diabetes contributes to 30% of strokes, 40% of heart attacks, 50% of kidney failure requiring dialysis, 70% of all non-traumatic leg and foot amputations and is leading the cause of blindness in Canada.
The direct cost to our health care system just last year was $3.8 billion. It is estimated to rise to about $5 billion by 2030. That is a huge weight on our health care system.
There is no doubt that diabetes is a serious chronic disease and it is on the rise. It is a disease that occurs when the body is either unable to sufficiently produce or properly use insulin. Over time, left untreated, it can damage blood vessels, nerves and organs such kidneys, eyes and heart, resulting in the serious complications that I mentioned, and ultimately death. It poses a challenge not only to those living with the disease, but also to their families, communities and the health care system. Therefore, any investment in reducing the rate of diabetes in our country should translate into long-term savings to our health care system. It just makes senses that we deal with this issue head on and deal with it now.
Also, each year close to 200,000 Canadians are newly diagnosed and many more diagnosed as prediabetic. Not all individuals with prediabetes will develop diabetes, but the chances increase if steps are not taken to manage it. Fortunately, recent studies have shown that changes in lifestyle, primarily diet, physical activity and weight management, can delay or even halt the progression. However, there is no question that we need to look at diabetes as a national problem and come up with a national framework, which Bill C-237 proposes.
The aging of the Canadian population, largely a result of baby boom cohort, has been one of the major factors contributing to the increase in the number of Canadians living with diagnosed diabetes. The increasing incidence is shocking. If any other health issue like cancer had increased in comparison, we would declare a national emergency and pull every fire alarm. Why do we not do it in this case? I believe it is because of the ongoing and unfair stigma that those with diabetes are simply lazy, unhealthy and authors of their own problems, which is simply not the case.
Diabetes is complex and the people affected by it are not always in full control of their health conditions. We need to stop thinking that this is entirely a lack of personal health. At the same time, we should also not underestimate the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle.
As part of any national framework on addressing diabetes, it is critically important that we look at the issue of organ donation. I know the member for Brampton South is also very supportive of organ donation and improving our system in Canada.
Diabetes, at its root, is a malfunctioning pancreas that fails to make the necessary amounts of insulin at the right time. For type 1 diabetes, there is some hope people could receive a pancreas and/or a kidney transplant. A transplant can cure this problem and eliminate the need for insulin shots, but we need more people to donate these life-saving organs.
For those who undergo a pancreas transplant, the survival rate exceeds 95% after one year and more than 88% after the five-year mark. It is possible to be a living donor and donate a pancreas, but this is rare and most donations come from deceased donors. Typically, these transplants last 10 to 12 years, so unfortunately multiple transplants and multiple donors are required over time.
When it comes to kidney donations, the situation in Canada is quite dire, with more than 3,300 people on the waiting list. The demand is high because kidney transplants are in need for more than just diabetics. The wait time can range from months to years. Many never get their second chance at life.
The good news is that people can be living kidney donors. They can donate one of their kidneys to save another. I admire the member for Edmonton Manning, who did so for his son. Of course, live donations are a complex process and are required because we do not have enough deceased donors.
The point is this: Canadians can dramatically improve the life and health of type 1 diabetics by becoming organ donors, so I strongly encourage all Canadians to register on their provincial organ donation registries and let their loved ones know of their decision.
Sadly, a pancreas transplant is not really an option for those with type 2 diabetes because that type of diabetes occurs when the body generates a resistance to insulin or is unable to utilize it properly. Type 1 diabetics make up about 10% of those with diabetes. Their bodies just do not make insulin, which is a situation where a pancreatic transplant would be required.
A constituent of mine, Brooklyn Rhead, a grade 12 student at St. Francis High School, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in February of last year. She suffered severe symptoms for about a year before her diagnosis. Her symptoms included extreme thirst, hair loss, fatigue, inability to concentrate and weight loss.
As part of Brooklyn's efforts, she has set out to increase awareness of type 1 diabetes and to raise $5,000 for diabetes research at her high school. So far, she has raised $3,900. I am confident that she will reach her goal, so I applaud her. More than 300,000 Canadians have type 1 diabetes, and Brooklyn's efforts are creating awareness. It is an important contribution to finding the answers.
Many are desperately longing for a cure. We know there is a need for a cure. We know there is political will. We know the need is urgent. We know the need is growing. As Parliamentarians, we need to move this bill along as quickly as possible to make that difference.
From my own personal experience, I have seen excellent pieces of legislation die when an election is called, so I hope we can get this to the Senate and get it passed as soon as possible before a writ is possibly dropped. Brooklyn and three million other Canadians are watching. They are counting on us to get the job done, so let us get it done.
View Tony Baldinelli Profile
CPC (ON)
View Tony Baldinelli Profile
2021-05-03 11:58 [p.6503]
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill. Bill C-237, the national framework for diabetes act, would direct the Minister of Health to develop a national framework to support diabetes prevention and treatment in consultation with relevant stakeholders. That is a key aspect of what this bill talks about. It would require the Minister of Health to hold at least one conference with relevant stakeholders to develop the described framework.
As we talk about stakeholders, it is my pleasure to stand in my place today to share with the House the advocacy efforts and work of one of my own constituents, Maya Webster. Maya is 10 years old, and she will continue advocating for type 1 diabetes research until a cure is discovered.
This past November, Maya took part in a lobby effort with more than 30 other delegates as part of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's Kids for a Cure Lobby Day 2020. JDRF is a global charitable organization with the goal of ending type 1 diabetes through research funding and advocacy. Kids for a Cure 2020 was a week-long virtual event that connected youth delegates with Canada's decision-makers and politicians. They were able to illustrate the daily challenges faced by people living with type 1 diabetes and to ask for more direct support from the government.
The foundation had three main asks during that lobby effort. They asked for the federal government to renew a partnership with JDRF and the Canadian Institutes of Health and Research, and for the federal government to create a national diabetes strategy, which is why we are here today. They also asked for more people to be able to access the disability tax credit. As Maya explains, “What I'm doing this year, and what I did in 2018 with this, is trying to find the cure because as much as I have insulin it still isn't a cure”.
As part of their consultation, delegates created virtual slide shows to give personal overviews of what living—
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-04-30 13:34 [p.6485]
moved:
That, given that the pandemic and the pressure it is putting on public finances has created the urgent need to close the loopholes being taken advantage of by some taxpayers through the use of tax havens, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
(a) amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;
(b) review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada;
(c) require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose, in their annual reports, a list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would have been subject to had their income been reported in Canada;
(d) review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside;
(e) work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion; and
(f) use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how happy I am to speak to this motion today. I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for supporting me in this presentation.
As we face a major public finance crisis, we must look at how we could eventually balance our public finances. Two options are always available to governments: increasing taxes or reducing services. This means taking more money out of taxpayers’ pockets or imposing austerity measures. However, while we are thinking of ways to make the people take their medicine, some people are avoiding doing their duty and not contributing according to their means.
In his speech to Congress this week, President Biden said that, according to one study, 55 of the largest businesses in the United States did not pay a penny in federal income tax last year, although they made some $40 billion in profits during the same period. How can that be?
There are two mechanisms that allow companies to shelter income from taxes. First, there are tax loopholes, which are measures provided for by law. When people have enough money, they can hire an army of accountants and tax experts to find the best ways of avoiding paying their fair share. It does not matter whether we are talking about an individual or a business. President Biden referred to the wealthiest people in the U.S., whose tax rate is lower than that of the middle class. That is unacceptable, despicable and scandalous. We need to look at tax loopholes.
There are also tax havens. What is a tax haven? It is a territory where income tax is almost non-existent. Businesses create satellite companies, and sometimes fictitious subsidiaries, in these territories to shelter their profits from the taxman. These subsidiaries exist only to enable companies to shelter their assets from taxes. They do not engage in any business activities or operations. They are empty shells that enable companies to avoid paying their fair share to society.
However transparent or opaque tax havens may be, everyone knows about them and about their impact on public finances. These schemes set up by accountants and other financiers or tax experts can go as far as tax evasion, simply hiding their clients’ income and wealth from the tax authorities. All these mechanisms are ways that some people use to avoid paying their fair share to the government, while other taxpayers continue to pay.
What makes this even more troubling is that, in many cases, these tax havens allow for tax avoidance or tax evasion and often become essential links in international criminal activity, making it possible for organized crime to launder money. Governments are powerless in the face of these tax havens, which create, or are complicit in, tax inequity among countries.
With advances in technology it is very easy to instantly transfer information and money, which makes it much more difficult to track operations.
In 2016, economist and legal expert James S. Henry calculated that a mind-boggling total of more than $36 trillion U.S. was in tax havens. We are talking about 36 trillion American dollars.
In 2017, no less than 40% of international financial transactions allegedly passed through tax havens, in one way or another, according to economist Gabriel Zucman.
The International Monetary Fund estimates that the use of tax havens cost governments a staggering $800 billion. This represents approximately $600 billion a year in corporate taxes and $200 billion a year in personal income taxes.
Tax havens are therefore a political issue that the House must absolutely address. Eliminating them is in the interest of our citizens. We must no longer give a free ride to profiteers, who have a vested interest in keeping these tax havens in place.
Canadian companies are far from being above reproach, since one-third of all Canadian foreign investments are in tax havens. According to Statistics Canada, Canadian businesses invested $381 billion in the 12 main tax havens in 2019.
That same year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that these were not really investments, but actually accounting operations aimed at avoiding paying tax. The Canada Revenue Agency estimated that Canadian businesses' investments in tax havens deprive the government of $11.4 billion in tax annually, and that large companies are responsible for 75% of this amount. That is four times more than the CRA estimated it loses to investments in tax havens by individuals in a report published a year earlier. I think that we need to recognize that there is a certain laxity, and that we need to react.
In 2018, the Minister of National Revenue boasted in the House that the Canada Revenue Agency was going to recover $15 billion as a result of its international tax investigations. The CRA's annual report indicates a far more modest result. It mentions a paltry $25 million, 600 times less than the minister estimated.
We recently learned that, five years after the Panama papers leak, the Canada Revenue Agency had yet to lay charges and had only claimed $21 million in unpaid taxes for the entire country.
Revenu Québec, however, recovered $21 million in addition to the $12 million it claimed and that remains unpaid, for a total of $33 million, for Quebec alone. It did so without the benefit of the international tax information the Canada Revenue Agency has access to.
It therefore appears that the Canada Revenue Agency and the federal government are among the most lax when it comes to prosecuting tax fraud. Moreover, the federal government is complicit in the increased use of tax havens because it literally legalized their use.
In 1994, Jean Chrétien's Liberal government allowed companies to repatriate the income earned in Barbados without paying a penny in tax. Paul Martin, who was finance minister at the time, took advantage of the regulatory change to register his company Canada Steamship Lines there.
Stephen Harper's Conservative government went even further, making a regulatory change that legalized 18 new tax havens. Five more have been added since then, 3 under the current Liberal government's previous mandate, which makes it 23 tax havens legalized through regulation.
The House of Commons never had a word to say about it. This major change was made by simple regulatory amendment, which the government tried to hid in a mishmash of documents.
As I said earlier, all of these changes were made by way of regulation. The House of Commons was never asked to consider the matter. Canada therefore plays a major role in international tax havens, but we wonder whether it is doing so for the right reasons.
There is a close connection between the federal government and certain West Indian tax havens, since Canada speaks not only on its own behalf, but on behalf of some of these tax havens. I am talking about countries like Barbados, Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Saint Lucia, for which Canada speaks at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund. That is unbelievable.
It appears, then, that tax havens have decided that Canada should defend their interests before international financial institutions, but who is defending the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians?
In addition to this highly questionable situation, we see that the digital multinationals have VIP passes that allow them to do business in Canada without paying a cent in taxes. The budget contained some indications that this will change, but why did the government wait so long, when businesses in Quebec and Canada pay their taxes?
The federal government, with its careless and cavalier attitude, has been complicit in allowing this loss of revenue for our public purse. Quebec has no fiscal leeway because it needs to know an income exists to be able to tax it. However, it is the federal government that signs the tax agreements and information-sharing agreements so it is the only one authorized to request tax information, pursuant to the Income Tax Act.
Quebec, in particular, is losing out on revenue because of Ottawa's complacency, and, as I was saying, Quebec does not have much leeway. All of this lost revenue could be put towards much-needed investments in health care, education and infrastructure.
It is also unfortunate that the single tax return bill was not passed, because it would have given Revenu Québec direct access to foreign tax information. That would have been a good thing, because Revenu Québec has proven much more effective than the Canada Revenue Agency in recovering money hidden in tax havens. If Revenu Québec was able to do better than the CRA using only the information it obtained from media leaks, imagine what it could do if it had direct access to foreign tax information.
Motion No. 69 proposes several solutions. It proposes to:
(a) amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;
We would also need to repeal subsection 5907(1) of the Income Tax Regulations, which I talked about earlier. The motion also proposes to:
(b) review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada;
We are talking about “shell companies” that do not engage in any real business activity but should be paying taxes in Canada. The motion also proposes to:
(c) require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose, in their annual reports, a list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would have been subject to had their income been reported in Canada;
In 2019, Canada's big six banks generated record profits of $46 billion, 50% more than five years before. In 2020, despite the pandemic, they made $41 billion. Their profits are going up, but they are paying less tax. We can only assume this is because they are investing in tax havens.
(d) review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside;
(e) work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion; and
(f) use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-04-30 14:25 [p.6493]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by making a few comments.
In his speech, the Liberal member said that he was presenting the government's position, which made my heart sink. This is yet another example of how Ottawa is as terrible at combatting tax evasion and tax avoidance as it is on the world stage. We are already at a disadvantage since the government has a bias towards tax havens.
I also have a comment for the Conservative member. I remind him that his party, under Stephen Harper, legalized the use of 23 tax havens. It is incorrect to say that that government was the master of combatting tax havens.
My last comment is for the New Democrat member. I commend him for all of the work he has done on this issue. I simply want to remind him that the motion he moved in the House that got the support of the Liberal majority government at the time was written in a way that was not binding, unlike today's motion. I am confident that if our motion is adopted, it will bring about real change.
Over the past year, the government has supported all of the businesses that have been battered by the pandemic, including bad corporate citizens. I am of course referring to businesses that use tax havens to avoid paying taxes here in Canada. They do not pay, but they receive. That is unacceptable, and it has to change.
That is actually what will happen south of the border. The Biden administration is putting a major action plan in place to limit the use of tax havens. Our neighbour to the south is also asking other countries to take similar steps. The crisis has cost both Canada and the United States dearly. Our society can no longer afford to give plutocrats the privilege of avoiding their tax obligations.
Will the government follow the Biden administration's lead? From what we have heard, it does not seem so.
Will the Minister of Finance act in solidarity with Janet Yellen, her American counterpart? Based on what the Liberals have said, unfortunately, I would say no. The Prime Minister has only spoken once with the U.S. President since Ms. Yellen's call to take measures. The meeting summary shows that the Prime Minister did not raise the issue.
At the next annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. administration will likely put forward its proposal for a minimum tax on multinationals. Unless the Canadian government changes its mind, it will probably oppose this initiative to protect its interests and, need I remind my colleagues, those of the 10 tax havens it represents internationally.
The motion moved by my colleague from Montarville seeks to make the government change course. The motion sends the government a strong message. Much needs to be done to stop the use of tax havens. Measures must be implemented to truly intercept illegally diverted funds. What is more, it is urgent that we make the immoral illegal.
Bay Street banks have made astronomical profits every quarter even during the pandemic. They operate in a market that is heavily protected by the government, and every year, they save billions of dollars in taxes when they divert activities conducted in Canada by artificially recording them in Barbados or Panama. This is heart-wrenching.
What makes absolutely no sense is that the government says that all of that is legal. This government kowtows to plutocrats. Given the current crisis, that needs to change now. That is why I am urging all of my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of the motion moved by my colleague from Montarville. It sets out six things that the government needs to do right now to create a fairer society, one that stops letting plutocrats get a free ride and makes them pay taxes. These six actions are very clear and will change things.
The first action would be to amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada.
The motion calls for subsection 5907(11) of the Income Tax Regulations to be repealed. This section, which was snuck in under the radar, enables Canadian companies to repatriate amounts from subsidiaries registered in one of the 23 tax havens with which Canada has a tax information exchange agreement without paying taxes. If it is repealed, that income will be taxed in Canada when the Canadian company repatriates it.
The second action would be to review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada. When a company registers a subsidiary or a billionaire establishes a trust abroad, that subsidiary or trust is considered a foreign national, independent from the Canadian citizen or company that created it, and its income becomes non-taxable.
In taxation jargon, these subsidiaries or trusts are referred to as permanent establishments, in other words, they have a taxable fixed place of business independent of their owner. In many cases, they are shell companies with no real activity. There is no justification for treating them differently from any other bank account and exempting the income they generate from tax. This has to change.
The third action would be to require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose in their annual reports the list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would be subject to if their income had been reported in Canada. For years that was a requirement. It has to be reinstated. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions could issue a simply directive requiring the banks to be transparent again. This very simple measure could be taken swiftly because it does not require any international negotiation or any legislative or regulatory change.
In 2019, the six Bay Street banks made a record profit of $46 billion. That is a 50% increase over five years. In 2020, despite the pandemic, they made $41 billion in profits. Their profits rise, but they pay less tax because they report their most profitable activities in tax havens, where their assets keep growing.
Until the door to the use of tax havens is closed shut, consumers would be able to choose their financial institution in an informed manner, and taxpayers would be able to judge whether the banks deserve government assistance.
The fourth action would be to review the tax regime that applies to digital multinationals whose business does not depend on a physical presence, and tax them from now on based on where they operate, rather than where they reside. The budget had some good news in that regard. On the one hand, the government will finally start collecting GST on services sold by these multinationals beginning July 1. This was included in the notice of ways and means we voted on earlier. Why did Ottawa wait so long? Quebec has been doing this for two years now, and it is going great. Better late than never.
The budget also announces the government's plan to tax multinational Internet companies on their activities at a rate of 3% of their sales in Canada beginning on January 1, 2022. We will remain vigilant. That is good news, but it might be merely hot air, since that date could be after the next election.
During the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois proposed using this 3% to compensate the victims of web giants, such as the creators, artists or media outlets whose content gets stolen by these heavyweights. It will do for a start, but the budget could have gone further.
The fifth action would be to work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion. We all know that in many cases tax havens are opaque and that it is impossible to know who really benefits from the trusts that are created. Often, we only know the name of the trustee that manages them or of the law or accounting firm that created them, but not the name of the person hiding behind them. Such a setup is a real boon for fraudsters who can hide their money with complete impunity.
The Panama papers and the Paradise papers, which were internal documents leaked from the firms that manage these companies, showed us the extent of the problem and the amounts hidden in these tax havens. With regard to the Panama papers, Radio-Canada reported early this month that Canada's response has been wholly inadequate, as my colleague from Montarville said. Radio-Canada published an article about the Panama papers under a headline pointing out that Quebec has recovered more unpaid taxes than Ottawa. Canada has recovered 15 times less money than the United Kingdom, 12 times less than Germany, and 10 times less than Spain. It is a real scandal. This must change. We must put an end to the secrecy. We need a registry of the real beneficiaries of trusts and other shell companies, which will eradicate this fraud.
The sixth action would be to use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the OECD against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them. As we know, this measure was taken in 2008-09. It moved forward but then stalled. This type of multilateral initiative has obvious advantages, but it does have one disadvantage. Since the OECD operates by consensus, it only takes one holdout to stall progress. After the 2009 crisis, this initiative was moving along nicely, but it has since slowed down, as I just said. The COVID-19 crisis could speed things up, however, especially given the calls from the U.S. government. Ottawa needs to get on board now.
A vote in favour of the motion moved by my colleague from Montarville is a vote in favour of asking the government to take these six actions, which will make a real difference in the fight against tax havens and make the system a little fairer.
Results: 91 - 105 of 362 | Page: 7 of 25

|<
<
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data