House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 25% of the vote.
Canada Revenue Agency April 30th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, we already knew that the RCMP was looking into the alleged corruption at the Canada Revenue Agency offices in Montreal. Now we know that the problem far exceeds the scope of this investigation.
The NDP has obtained documents showing that more than 450 problematic cases over a period of eight years caused great risk within the agency.
How can the minister cut hundreds of millions of dollars from Revenue Canada when it already has so many problems?
Study on Income Inequality April 25th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to discuss the hon. member for Kings—Hants' motion to undertake a study on income inequality.
First, I would like to congratulate the hon. member and tell him that this is a very good topic. Before I begin talking about the motion, I would really like to thank all of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance who agreed to examine my motion on tax havens and tax evasion, whether they are on this side of the House or the other.
I would now like to come back to the motion in question and the studies that have been conducted. Contrary to what the government says, it is important to examine what is happening. Right now, it seems as though the government is not making decisions based on facts. It is saying that everything is fine and that the system is working. However, if we look at the facts and rely on the studies that have been done, we realize that the inequality between the rich and the poor is continuing to grow.
An OECD report dated December 5, 2011, clearly states:
The gap between rich and poor in OECD countries has reached its highest level in over 30 years, and governments must act quickly to tackle inequality.
This report examines what is happening in Canada and other countries, and points out that inequality is increasing quickly in the rest of the industrialized countries, including the United States. Thus, the gap between rich and poor continues to grow.
Personally, in my role as the member for Brossard—La Prairie, I have observed this trend. Some of my constituents are workers. The husband and the wife work, have children and must now use food banks. Why? Because, despite the fact they have jobs, they do not make enough to cover all the increases in the cost of living and housing. There is a problem.
It is deplorable when the government decides not to look at what is really happening, because it ignores the real problem and does not ask the right questions. Even my Liberal colleague has admitted that this problem was created not just by this government, but also by previous governments.
When we look at the numbers and how things have evolved over the years, we know that we are heading in the wrong direction, here in Canada and in other industrialized countries. Some countries, such as Denmark, are dealing with this gap. In Canada, the problem is that we are not considering it. The fact that the government does not want to conduct a study is somewhat disappointing.
In September 2011, another agency—the Conference Board of Canada—truly studied the problem. It pointed out that since the mid-1990s, income inequality has been growing faster in Canada than in the United States. We were under the impression that in Canada, everything was going well, and that our country ensured equality between the rich and the poor, but on the contrary, inequality is growing faster here. In the United States, there is truly a significant gap between the rich and the poor and that is where Canada is headed. If the government does not wake up and realize what is happening, we are going to hit a wall. The government also has to listen to what the population is saying.
Does the government realize that there are currently occupy movements in Canada? A number of people, students and families alike, are outraged. The population is speaking and they are saying there is a problem. Studying this problem, with this type of motion, is a start.
Unfortunately, we will have some work to do in order to amend the motion to take it a little further. However, this is a step in the right direction and we can work with the other parties in order to really ensure that we identify the problem and come up with solutions.
One of the things that the Conference Board of Canada looked at was the Gini index, which most people do not know about. Basically, it is a means of measuring the degree of income inequality in a given society. The Gini index ranges from zero to one, with zero meaning perfect equality and one meaning complete inequality. The goal should be to use this index, but unfortunately, Canada does not.
We know these numbers, but Canada does not use them. Furthermore, as the government did with Statistics Canada, it is taking away more and more information and facts that otherwise would allow us to really take stock. If we want to know what is really happening, we need tools like the Gini index.
The Conference Board of Canada is not overly left or right leaning, but I would have to say that it leans a little to the right, if anything. What matters is understanding the effects, the repercussions and what is happening right now, so we can respond.
That is why we will support a study on this. And simply to—
National Revenue April 4th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, why cut funding from the agency that catches tax cheaters?
Tax cheaters cost Canadians billions. However, Conservatives are attacking the people trying to get the money back. Over the past two years, $2.8 billion was recovered from tax cheats, but more can and should be done to reverse the tax on OAS, to invest in health care and create jobs.
Instead of cuts, why will the government not invest more in CRA and help it find more tax cheats?
National Revenue April 4th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General estimates that millions of Canadians systematically avoid paying taxes without worrying in the slightest about Revenue Canada. The agency does not have the necessary resources to go after these tax cheaters. Instead of helping Revenue Canada, the Conservatives are once again cutting its budget. The government is letting billions of dollars slip through its fingers.
Instead of cutting services, why are the Conservatives not getting tough on tax evasion?
Highway Infrastructure April 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the idea of setting up a toll on the Champlain Bridge was bad enough, but now the Conservatives are talking about setting up tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Mercier bridges as well.
This decision could have an adverse economic effect on families on the south shore and the merchants of Montreal. People are going to take detours in order to avoid the tolls.
Why do the Conservatives want to make families pay for a new bridge when access to the island is currently free?
Charities March 30th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the minister's response clearly demonstrates that he does not care about the environment.
Apparently, it is not enough for the Conservatives to call environmental groups radicals. They went even further in the budget. They are now going to monitor these groups' political activities. The Conservatives are cutting $225 million from Revenue Canada, but they have enough money to create an $8 million fund to play the enforcer. They are doing everything in their power to protect their pipelines from the evil organizations that oppose them.
Why are the Conservatives infringing on charities' right to freedom of expression?
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act March 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate her on her excellent speech. This bill deals with a free trade agreement with Panama. Rather than simply oppose everything, we have proposed changes with respect to workers' rights. We believe that these rights need to be taken into account if we are to help the people of Panama and of Canada.
Why, in my colleague’s opinion, should we protect the rights of workers in a free trade agreement with Panama?
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act March 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the Green Party for her question.
I agree with her that this government is not entirely transparent and often presents us with a fait accompli. We see this in virtually every regard.
When we want to debate, it gags us, and when we want to talk about something as fundamental as a free trade agreement, it presents us with a fait accompli. And when we propose amendments, it rejects them. There has been no real public debate about this. None of the groups that work to protect the environment or to protect workers’ rights have been heard.
The real role of the government and the House is to discuss and debate all the issues from various angles. Unfortunately, this government is very much lacking in transparency.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act March 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her questions.
Yes, I have read them and I am aware of them. These amendments clearly propose that we sign a genuine free trade agreement. We are now talking about co-operation. We want action; we want something concrete. Unfortunately, the problem is that the government still has a very narrow vision.
Has an agreement to exchange tax information been signed? No. That is what we are saying.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act March 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.
The author is indeed Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics who wrote a book specifically about how to ensure that trade is fairer and more just.
His analysis was based on the agreements that have been signed. One of the things that has to be considered is fighting poverty. The time to do that is during negotiations, and that is where we are at present.
Earlier, we heard the Liberals saying it was better to sign right away and fix the problem later. I think that would mean missing a good opportunity. When you are negotiating, you really have to think about sustainable development, the environment, and some kind of balance when it comes to social justice. That can be done. We are living in a period of globalization and trade is on the rise. Canada is part of that world, and so trade is important. In negotiations, we must consider not only the interests of the multinationals, as is the problem now, but also sustainable development and making everything fairer.