Jean-Denis Garon

Mr. Speaker, Greeting · 28 wordsI will be sharing my time with my friend and excellent colleague, the member for Shefford. I am really looking forward to hearing what she has to say.Greeting Aside · 57 wordsI was not as eager to hear what the parliamentary secretary had to say, but I listened carefully to his speech. I do not remember what he is the parliamentary secretary of. He is probably the parliamentary secretary of everything. I mean that as a compliment, by the way, and I hope he takes it as one.AsideOff point Positioning · 97 wordsWhat he essentially told us is that an election was held and, after the last election, important public policy changes were made. He told us that there was a new government, Partly on pointbut we all know that it is not really new. New Liberal members crossed the floor of the House, but the government is essentially the same.Off point He told us that some policy changes were made. I am thinking back to the election campaign and I do not recall a time when voters gave this government a mandate to create tax injustices.Partly on point I do not remember that.PositioningOff point Reasoning · 94 wordsThere is a principle that Quebeckers hold dear, and I believe Canadians are probably also pretty attached to that principle. I am talking about the principle that everyone has to pay their fair share of taxes. As my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj said earlier, when we go to a restaurant or buy goods such as cars or other things we need in our daily lives, we pay taxes. When people go to work, they pay income tax. People pay their taxes.Partly on point In today’s digital economy, some players do not pay their share of taxes. Claims · 134 wordsLet me provide some context. The Prime Minister keeps telling us that the world has changed and that we must adapt to those changes. That is what he said. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue has echoed that message hundreds of times. As we know, the world of communications has changed too, Partly on pointbecause the world has gone digital. Back when Parliament first passed laws to regulate broadcasting and support Canadian television and radio production, there was cable, relatively few channels and limited foreign competition. People paid to subscribe. Viewers funded a significant portion of the production, while the government also provided production subsidies.³Partly on point Today, however, we live in the age of the Internet, where information travels very quickly, over vast distances and in very large volumes, with international competition. The concept is this. Positioning · 93 wordsWhen a foreign company provides digital services in Canada, it is providing something unique. If I buy an apple grown in the United States, it is imported. Naturally, the best apples come from Saint‑Joseph‑du‑Lac, but the point is, buying an apple means a transaction takes place at a specific point in time. We know where the value was originally created. The apple grew on an apple tree, it was transported, and we know where the transaction took place. We know the economic value of this transaction because we know where it took place.PositioningPartly on point Reasoning · 221 wordsWhen it comes to digital services, however, the place where the service is produced and the place where it is consumed are two different places. There are companies that are not based here, yet they carry on economic activities here. Therefore, the prevailing tax principle is that, Partly on pointbecause these companies are based in California or elsewhere in the United States, they need answer only to U.S. tax authorities. What do these companies that come here actually do? Social media platforms such as Facebook and the like steal content. The government has taken certain actions.Hidden agency They steal segments of news programs, TV dramas, and movies that someone produced and paid for. In that context, who is going to produce cultural products when our own cultural products are allowed to be stolen? Similarly, there are companies that operate here but do not pay their fair share of taxes, the idea being that, even though the service is consumed here, for tax purposes, the economic value lies in the United States, where the service is produced. As for the transaction, we do not know where it takes place. It takes place in two places simultaneously. These companies are therefore generating billions and billions of dollars in revenue on Canadian soil. That means Canadians are the ones footing the bill. That revenue is not taxed. Claims · 123 wordsMeanwhile, we have this outdated regulatory framework that was written back when no one knew the Internet even existed. Maybe people knew it existed, but they did not know it would grow to such a scale, and the framework did not include these digital services. If the government had known at the time that today’s technological environment would be what it is, it would have included that in the framework, so that is what the Liberal government did, and we supported it.Partly on point It said that we would have tax fairness and that these people would simply pay Canadians a portion of their sales in Canada.⁷ These people were going to contribute to the media ecosystem and take some pressure off our overtaxed media. Positioning · 97 wordsI do not presume to know what the Speaker thinks, but I know there are Conservatives here who do not like taxes. However, Partly on pointif we scrap this levy, as the government is currently doing, we will end up overtaxing our own media. The Liberals have decided to put an end to this, to violate their own act, to override the rule of law, to override democracy and to say that this is a new government, so the laws passed by previous parliaments can get thrown out. They decided to take even more money out of taxpayers’ pockets.Positioning The question · 87 wordsDo my colleagues care about the cost of living? American multinationals worth billions do not want to pay, so the government is going to tax people instead. Why did they do that?Partly on point They did it because they caved to Donald Trump, and not for the first time.Off point Consider the digital services tax. Donald Trump said that Americans did not like Canada’s digital services tax, so the Liberals viewed it as a sticking point in trade talks. They rolled over and let Donald Trump walk all over them. Claims · 275 wordsThey said it would help them in the negotiations, but it did not.Off point As for the levies on digital services, they acted in the middle of summer when everyone was on vacation, just like they did with the by-elections. They went to Washington and came back, concluding that it displeased the U.S. President, even though the U.S. is our largest trading customer, so the government caved, allowed itself to be pushed around and let the president use Canada as a doormat.Partly on point This was coming from “Mr. Canada”, who said “elbows up”.Off point The government then scrapped the levy. They figured that if Donald Trump’s U.S. multinationals did not want to pay, then Canadians would foot the bill instead. After all, they were able to do it. They have no problem paying rent or buying groceries, so they are making Canadians pay.Partly on point The Standing Committee on Finance raised the issue of the global minimum tax, ⁴which would also affect digital companies because they do not pay their fair share of taxes. They use transfer pricing and all sorts of tax schemes to avoid paying their fair share, anywhere in the world. The government is considering a global minimum tax on the sales made in Canada by massive, profitable companies.⁵ The Minister of Finance moved an amendment at the Standing Committee on Finance and said that only the Americans would be exempt, ⁶because they have their own system and tax themselves, as they see fit, even for economic activity generated in Canada. Now he wants to exempt the Americans. Canada is bowing down, and Donald Trump is using us as a doormat. That is exactly what is happening.Partly on point The ask · 257 wordsWhat did we get in return? We got absolutely nothing.Partly on point At the same time, fundamental principles, such as respect for the rule of law, our institutions and acts of Parliament, are being violated. The one violating those principles today is the U.S. government.Off point We are simply asking the CRTC to uphold the law and require these multinationals to contribute 15%.² That is less than the 20% to 30% paid by our own companies, incidentally.¹ They are already getting a discount. Now the government is saying that, because it rolled over for Donald Trump, it is now going to apply Donald Trump’s principles, violate its own laws, circumvent the rulings of its own administrative tribunals and turn its back on decisions made by previous governments. It is going to do exactly what the Americans are asking for. When told that he was violating these principles, the minister across the way, the “minister of poutine”, says that he funded the poutine festival and so people need to stop whining and complaining.Off pointInsult It is unbecoming of a government to tell people in the cultural sector struggling with sustainable financing and an outdated system that the poutine festival is receiving funds so they can just shut up. Basically, it shows that the government has no answer. It shows that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture is uneasy.Off point I am sure that does not sit well with Quebeckers in the Liberal caucus, because the decision is a Canadian decision and unacceptable for our cultural ecosystem. The levy needs to be reinstated.