Debates of Dec. 14th, 2010

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I think what the member opposite, and particularly those in his constituency, would like to know is why the Liberal Party is constantly against efforts to give the Canadian Forces the important equipment it needs, like this aircraft.

Why is he also abandoning his local aerospace industry? In and around Montreal, it will be a primary beneficiary of the many jobs and the potential of billions of dollars in contracts that will be afforded the Canadian aerospace industry.

Why is he abandoning his constituents' interests and those of the Canadian Forces? That is what Canadians need to know.

Marc Garneau Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Minister of National Defence, I proudly served in the Canadian Forces.

The Minister of National Defence is incredible. He is not even consistent. He says that it is a done deal but that is wrong. He says that it is a fixed price but that is wrong. He says that it is on time but that is wrong. He says that it was a competition but that is wrong. Because he has been so inept, he is now wasting money on a road show travelling across Canada to sell this—

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Order, please. The hon. Minister of National Defence.

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his tremendous service to this country in uniform. I would, however, ask him again why he is abandoning those who are currently in uniform who need this aircraft. Why is he abandoning the Canadian aerospace industry? In particular, why is he abandoning a company like Héroux-Devtek, which is currently operating in the Montreal area? It says that they enthusiastically support the Government of Canada's decision to purchase the F-35 joint strike fighters. The program, based on our partnership with nine nations, originating in 1997, will provide thousands—

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, this government will not tolerate any misconduct by Canada Revenue Agency employees, such as the cases brought to light by this investigation. Our government supports this investigation and will see to it that the CRA co-operates fully.

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is determined to say nothing. But we are not asking for details about individual cases. We want the straight goods, especially since the integrity commissioner was recently accused of not doing her job properly.

Can the Prime Minister at least give us an idea of where things stand right now? Is there a ring, yes or no?

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, an investigation is under way and the RCMP has been informed. As I just said, this misconduct is totally unacceptable, and our government will deal with this situation.

Daniel Paillé Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Committee on Finance, representatives from the Department of Finance restated their decision not to ask the banks to close their subsidiaries in tax havens, as France has done. What is more, these officials confirmed that by using tax havens the banks saved $1.5 billion in 2009.

Why is the Minister of Finance attacking low income workers, but allowing his banker friends to save $1.5 billion by using tax havens? Let the Minister of Finance answer.

Keith Ashfield Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, the CRA has made a decision to focus on aggressive audit efforts to find the money that is hiding in offshore accounts rather than study it.

The Prime Minister and the government have taken decisive action to give CRA the tools and resources it needs to aggressively pursue those Canadians who avoid paying their taxes.

Last year alone CRA uncovered $1 billion in unpaid taxes internationally, nearly eight times the amount uncovered during the last years of the Liberals.

Jean-Yves Laforest Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Conservative and Liberal members refused not once, but twice to have a tax information exchange agreement signed before implementing the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement.

How can the Conservative government continue to promote an agreement that will contribute to decreasing its tax revenue but increase the profits of white collar criminals who evade taxes?

Peter Van Loan Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, our free trade agreement with Panama does nothing of the sort. What it does is help us achieve our objective of focusing on Canada's economy, on creating economic opportunities for Canadians, on creating job opportunities for Canadians.

That is what our ambitious free trade agenda is doing. We have entered into free trade agreements with eight countries since we formed the government. The result is more opportunities for Canadians, for jobs and for economic growth.

That is why we are continuing to negotiate with the European Union for a very ambitious free trade agreement with them. Again our focus is jobs and prosperity for Canadians.