Hoang Mai

[Governor General, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak about motion M-313 and to tell my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour that we are going to support his motion.

The question is not necessarily whether one is for against the monarchy. It is a question of social justice and equity. I listened to my Conservative colleague conclude her speech by saying “God save the Queen” when we are simply talking about what is fair and not fair here.

We have a Governor General. As my colleague from the Bloc mentioned, this is not a personal attack against the current Governor General, on the contrary. As newly elected members, we had the opportunity to meet the Governor General, who lives in a very beautiful home and it is very kind. That is not the issue.

The issue is that the Governor General earns $138,000 per year. These are tough times and everyone must do his share. The government says that the most important thing is the economy. Indeed, the economy is important, but families and people are also important. There is also an issue of social equity and sharing. The Governor General earns $138,000 a year, but is also entitled to $19.8 million a year on spending for expenses and the office of the Secretary to the Governor General. That is a lot of money.

In our opinion, it is normal that a salary paid and received in Canada should be taxed. It is a question of social equity: a person who works must be taxed. As members of Parliament, we pay taxes. Everybody pays taxes. This is not about increasing taxes, but making sure that everyone pays his share, including the Governor General. Later, if I have the time, I will speak about certain governors general who made decisions that I did not agree with.

The NDP is clearly in favour of a progressive tax system. It is important that each and every person pays the proper share. An annual salary of $138,000 is a lot compared to the average family's income. Currently, in my riding of Brossard—La Prairie, there are still people who, despite the fact they are working, have to go to food banks to make ends meet.

The government says that it wants to promote the monarchy. Not only does the Governor General not pay taxes, there will also be extravagant spending on the Jubilee, among other things. I agree with my colleague’s remarks. The Conservatives can be excessive when promoting the monarchy.

I would reiterate that this is not a question of being for or against the monarchy, but of being for or against fairness and social justice. On this side, we are for social justice.

The Queen herself decided, voluntarily, to make her income taxable. That is reasonable. In 2011, the Government of New Zealand followed Australia. In 2001, the Governor General of Australia was made subject to the taxation system. The trend is that a governor general’s income will be taxed. This is what we want to do by supporting this motion.

Why does anyone say that the Governor General should not be taxed? Of course, the Conservatives will say they want to protect their friends, and the Governor General is their friend, and so on, but it is also a result of the fact that it was always said that the Crown may not be taxed. However, as we have seen in the United Kingdom, the Queen decided voluntarily to have her salary taxed. It is time for the Governor General to follow suit.

The Governor General also enjoys benefits. I mentioned the millions of dollars he has available for his office. Is that justified? Again, that is not the issue here. The government and the Governor General need to come to some realizations, but that is another matter.

We have to look at what goes on everywhere in Canada, in the provinces.

We know that the lieutenant governors’ salaries are also subject to income tax. I think that is really very reasonable. It means not operating extravagantly and ideologically, and simply saying that we do our work and everyone has to do their share, particularly in these times when the government is arguing that we have economic problems and saying it is going to bring down an austerity budget. I think it is somewhat inconsistent to say the Governor General should not do his share. This is not necessarily about the present Governor General. However, if we want to have a system that is fair and socially acceptable, things have to be changed.

I do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance when she says Quebeckers would not agree on this. On the contrary, I believe Quebeckers and Canadians want to have a certain level of social fairness. If we agree that we have to pay income tax, why should another person not have to do so?

I might say that in certain cases, it is not a question of penalties. Let us consider certain governors general, including one in particular, who agreed to prorogue this Parliament, when she had the possibility of playing a decisive role and living up to her responsibilities. The Governor General could have changed things and made her role important. Instead, she agreed to prorogue Parliament. This is very disappointing. Moreover, when I asked this question of the current Governor General, I got a politician's answer, but that is part of the game.

As I said, Canadians are going to understand that what we are asking is simply to know whether the salary of someone who works here in Canada, who does a job with which we agree or disagree based on our position on the matter and even the generation to which we belong–which is not the issue for debate today–should be taxed.

On this side of the House, we believe that this salary should be taxed. That is why we are going to support our colleague's motion.

I think that this is simply about falling into line with what is happening in Australia, New Zealand and the provinces. It is only natural that the Governor General's salary should be taxed.

I do not understand why the government is not supporting this motion. The government says it is time to tighten our belts, but then it goes and spends millions of dollars to change the name of the army and to put up photos of the Queen. Once again, it is not a matter of being for or against the monarchy, it is simply a question of money.

The Conservatives boast that they are good managers when it comes to public spending, but if we look at what they have done in terms of the G20, the G8 and the F-35s, it is obvious that they mismanage spending. Their spending is quite ideologically driven.

Once again, the fact that the government is refusing or seems to be refusing to support the motion shows that the Conservatives are not really listening. Not only is the government not listening to Canadians, it is not paying attention to Canada's current financial needs. We are being asked to cut pensions by pushing back the age at which seniors are eligible for their pension in order to pay for other things such as the Governor General's salary.

There are some other highly questionable government expenses. We saw this again with the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance ended her speech. Throughout her speech, she spoke of the monarchy. She said she was in favour of this institution and that it was very important. She praised everything the Queen has done and everything the governors general have done. I wonder whether the Governor General would voluntarily agree to pay income tax, as the Queen has.

Anyone who has any sense of social justice and fairness would answer in the affirmative. He would say that if his fellow citizens are being asked to do their fair share, then he should do his. In this case, it is the Governor General who should be doing his part.

I do not know whether the Conservatives consulted the Governor General before taking this position. If they saw what the Queen did, then they would understand that it is normal for a person who works and earns a high salary to pay taxes.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Lambert for her question.

We did not put forward an excessive number of amendments to this bill. The amendments merely served to connect the approval of the department or minister to the Canadian economy, to show that there is a link between them. If we consider only the interests of financial institutions and not the interests of our country's economy, the approach will be unbalanced. We simply want the minister to also consider the Canadian economy when making decisions. Unfortunately, the Conservatives rejected the amendments.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, I did not work for a bank. I am now in the House of Commons, but I used to be a corporate lawyer and I worked with banks. People who voted for me worked in banks, so I am familiar with what happens in the financial sector.

Even people who work in banks will tell us that there has to be a certain balance. When a bank is making billions of dollars in profit and it is gouging the consumers, people are not going to be happy. They understand that balance.

Unfortunately, at one point, they are even asking the government to regulate on some of those issues. We in the NDP are saying that interest rates on credit cards have to be capped and we have to put a cap on the excessive fees that banks charge.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

This is indeed a problem. As I was saying, I worked with banks before becoming a member of Parliament. I did business with people who worked in banks. Many of these people voted for me. Why? They did so because a balance is needed. Even the people who work in banks will say it: consumers are paying a high price. This is a problem, and what the hon. member said is completely true.

According to Duff Conacher, the coordinator of Democracy Watch and chair of the Canadian Community Reinvestment Coalition, past government actions were too little, too late to ensure Canada's big banks and other companies were not making excessive profits from gouging customers.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-5 to amend our financial system. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, which examined Bill S-5.

A member across the floor mentioned the sunset clause. Indeed, this system should be reviewed every five years, but our problem with the government is that it is improvising on this issue. It passed this bill in the Senate with very little public consultation, then it used the date when this review is supposed to take place as an excuse for not accepting any of our amendments. This proves that the government did not take this bill seriously and did not do its homework.

As we all know, our financial system is very important. I am a notary and lawyer and, before I was elected, my clients included Canadian banks, some of them in Montreal. Our banking system is important to our economy. However, this bill overlooks consumers. People have to assume the cost of the banks' excesses, and this has not been taken into account at all.

Nor does this bill take the global crisis into account. I am not making this up. Many believe that the crisis originated in the financial sector, primarily in banks in the United States, which had an impact the world over. There was an opportunity to do something here, but once again, this government improvised and did not take the steps that should have been taken.

The members across the floor say that we on this side of the House are idealists. That is true, but we are also pragmatic. We proposed real solutions. It is true that this bill has little impact. It contains technical revisions and deals with minor administrative concerns. However, we are worried about one point: the acquisition of foreign banks by Canadian banks.

A system was introduced a few years ago, establishing the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, which is responsible for assessing these transactions. When a Canadian bank acquires a foreign bank, it affects our economy and our financial system. We want such acquisitions to be truly beneficial for our economy. The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions should have been mandated to study such purchases and make recommendations, perhaps even give its approval. However, Bill S-5 puts this power in the hands of the minister. This poses a problem.

This power used to belong to the minister, but was given to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in an effort to depoliticize the process and avoid having a minister be influenced by his connections or lobbyists and make a decision that would defy the financial system and what had been proposed. Now, the Conservatives, who claim our system is working, are in the process of reversing the decision and giving the power back to the minister.

Some of the ministers across the way have very close ties to lobbyists. The Minister of the Environment, to name one, does more to promote lobbyists than he does to protect Canadians in this regard. The concern here is what might happen with the Minister of Finance. Without pointing the finger directly at this Minister of Finance, putting this power back into the hands of a minister makes the decision very political and problematic. What is more, there is no requirement to provide public explanations. The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions could say that a certain transaction is not beneficial to Canadian financial institutions and, without providing any explanation, the minister could ignore that decision and make his own decision.

The process is becoming very political and that is worrisome. What is happening in the United States is a result of the deregulation of the system. The Conservative government is doing the same thing here. That is one of our major concerns. We are being told that all we want to do is make proposals that will only delay matters. Yet the amendment we proposed was quite simple.

We did not have a lot of time to debate it because the government once again decided to move quickly and push things through.

We had asked the minister, when he makes a decision, that he not just look at the criteria that are good for the Canadian financial system—that is important and we would not take that away—but that he also look at the criteria that are good for the Canadian economy. Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected. It is very hard to understand why.

When a Canadian bank takes over a foreign bank, some people think that this must also be good for the Canadian economy. Unfortunately, our amendment was rejected. It is very difficult to understand. I wonder what this means. I have to interpret this myself, because the government was not very clear on this subject. All that matters to this government is the financial system, not the Canadian economy. Yet they cannot be separated. It is important to discuss the financial system, but we must also discuss the impact that it can have on the Canadian economy. In a way, this shows that the government wants to hold on to power and wants to make a decision its own way, once again without explaining why it is moving in this direction. With this bill, the Conservative government is again showing its lack of transparency. It wants to politicize the matter and does not want to explain to Canadians what is happening in this regard. We asked for further information, but unfortunately we did not receive it.

I will now address another matter. We know that this bill had to be introduced. However, the government is once again being criticized for its lack of vision because it had a golden opportunity to reform the banking system. I do not think that this government can pat itself on the back for that. In addition to reviewing the banks and financial institutions, the impact on consumers should have been considered as well.

We now know that the government's job creation strategy is to give tax breaks to big business, including the banks. Does that create jobs? It remains to be seen. We do not believe it does, as indicated by the statistics on job losses and unemployment. Despite this, banks have not lowered their interest rates, even though the prime rate is at an historic low. And that is not all. After receiving tax breaks and making billions of dollars in profit, the banks are now increasing their fees.

Look at what is happening. Consumers have contracts with banks or have bank accounts. They borrow money and proceed as usual. It is a bit like the gas situation. We cannot get out of it. People are a bit dependent on the system, on the bank. The bank can do what it wants. Despite the fact that interest rates are very low, credit rates have not changed at all. Who is reaping the benefits? The banks.

Banks are increasing their fees and it is not consumers who are benefiting. That is what we are telling the government. The members opposite need to be aware of this because they too represent constituents who are consumers. The government must not be so single-minded. It makes for a very unbalanced approach. Once again, this is a problem that we have with the government, that it is too single-minded and is not looking at how what it is doing will affect the entire system, whether we are talking about tax cuts for large corporations or the banking reform that it may or may not implement. This affects consumers. We are asking the government to take a broader view of the situation and to look at what is happening in this respect.

If we were to ask any of the members opposite whether any of their constituents are being negatively affected by this, I think that they would say yes. We do not even need to ask. We simply need to look at the figures. The OECD will tell them, and so will economists. Household debt is a problem. It has reached a record high of 151% in Canada. This means that for every dollar a family earns, it owes $1.51. The record level of household debt is a problem. Yet, unfortunately, the government is not doing anything about it. This would have been a good time to do something, but unfortunately, once again, the government is demonstrating its complete lack of vision. This is a missed opportunity.

This government is bragging and saying that the system is working well and that everything is fine, but I think that the government must be really out of touch if it does not see that people are suffering. This would have been a good opportunity to help consumers and families. Unfortunately, the government did nothing in this respect.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 26th, 2012]

With regard to the allegations of and investigations into corruption at the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA): (a) how many employees have been fired or constructively dismissed over allegations of corruption, (i) what was their position or role at the CRA, (ii) how many have left under unfavorable circumstances over allegations of corruption, (iii) how did these allegations come to light at the CRA, (iv) were the CRA employees given the specific cause for their dismissal, (v) what are the different reasons for their dismissal; (b) under which authority does the CRA conduct investigations into allegations of corruption and with what investigative tools; (c) how many internal investigations were there at the CRA (i) this year, (ii) in the past two decades; (d) does the CRA employ internal auditors whose responsibilities include investigating allegations of corruption, and, if so, (i) how many such Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) internal auditors does the CRA employ, (ii) what are their job descriptions; (e) does the CRA employ external auditors whose responsibilities include investigating allegations of corruption, and, if so, (i) how many such FTE external auditors does the CRA employ, (ii) what are their job descriptions; (f) what was the budget for those internal and external auditors identified in (d) and (e) in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011; (g) what is the 10-year trend for the budgeting and FTE staffing of internal and external auditors at the CRA; (h) has the CRA’s internal capacity to investigate increased or decreased and, if so, by how much; (i) are there different departments within the CRA handling internal investigations into allegations of corruption; (j) what are the different processes involved in an investigation into allegations of corruption at the CRA, (i) at what time in the investigative process is the RCMP involved, (ii) how many times has the RCMP been involved in investigative processes at the CRA, (iii) how many of these instances have resulted in further investigation; (k) can the RCMP investigate allegations of corruption without CRA consent and, if so, how many times has it happened in the past; (l) what information concerning allegations of corruption is shared by the RCMP and the CRA, (i) can the CRA ask the RCMP for updates on ongoing investigations, (ii) does the RCMP provide progress reports or recommendations to the CRA at the end or during investigations, (iii) how long is the average duration of investigations, (iv) what is the level of communication between the CRA and the RCMP during investigations, (v) is the government planning on improving the process, (vi) have there been recent steps to improve these relations; (m) who at the CRA has the authority to ask (i) for internal investigations, (ii) for external investigations; (n) following investigations into allegations of corruption by the CRA, how many charges have been laid, (i) how many charges have led to convictions, (ii) what are the most common charges, (iii) what departments are more vulnerable to allegations of corruption; (o) what are the different evidence-gathering impediments when investigating these allegations, (i) is the Canada Evidence Act ever used by CRA investigators or auditors, (ii) has the CRA ever asked the Department of Justice to reform the Canada Evidence Act; (p) what is the level of information-sharing between the CRA and different bodies such as, but not limited to, (i) federal or provincial departments, (ii) federal or provincial agencies, (iii) the provincial police and municipal police; (q) how does the CRA plan to eliminate corruption at the CRA; (r) have there been any studies or task forces mandated to look at how best to eliminate corruption at the CRA; (s) what are the mechanisms recently put in place to eliminate or take into account corruption practices; (t) what will be the effect of cuts to expenditures at the CRA on the CRA auditor or internal investigative capacity; (u) of the known cases of corruption, is corporate tax fraud or individual tax fraud more prevalent and, consequently, what departments are most scrutinized by internal investigators; and (v) what are the CRA internal investigation guidelines?

[Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his eloquence and for reciting a poem. As he knows, my parents are from Vietnam. They had the opportunity to come here to study. Canada also accepted many boat people, as they were called, who came here as refugees. I am concerned about how children fleeing their country, who have problems such as not having any papers, will be treated in Canada. What does the bill say about these children? I would like my colleague to talk about that.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 14th, 2012]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) response to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA): (a) according to the government’s analysis, do the FATCA provisions comply with the provisions of the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America With Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital and its amending Protocol (2007); (b) how many citizens from the United States of America will be affected by FATCA, (ii) are there specific Canadian exemptions to FATCA; (c) has Canada negotiated with United States Treasury officials or the IRS following the announcement of FATCA provisions, (i) at what time was the government made aware of these provisions, (ii) how long did it take Canada to respond to the initial creation of FATCA and its implementation, (iii) are there ongoing negotiations in this regard; (d) will Canada inform dual citizens about FATCA and, if so, (i) how, (ii) at what time, (iii) what department or agencies will be responsible; (e) has the government conducted any studies or mandated a task force to look into how much FATCA will cost Canadians and, if so, what are the cost implications resulting from the additional regulations and demands, (i) for the government, (ii) for the CRA, (iii) for Canadian banks, (iv) who will absorb these costs, (v) are there other types of non-financial costs such as efficiency or fairness reductions; (f) which Canadian civil liberties associations or other types of association has the government met with to discuss the privacy implications of FATCA and what actions will the government undertake to protect the fundamental civil liberties of all Canadians in this regard; (g) according to the government’s analysis, do the FATCA provisions comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act or the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and if so, which department undertook this assesment; (h) in order to discuss the implications of FATCA, who within the government has met with (i) Canadian banks, (ii) other financial institutions, (iii) insurance companies; (i) how many complaints has the CRA received regarding FATCA, (i) what are the main complaints, (ii) what has the CRA done concerning these complaints, (iii) what department at the CRA is in charge of dealing with complaints of this nature, (iv) will the CRA cut Full-Time Equivalents from that department or reduce its funding, (v) has the office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman looked into the matter; (j) has Canada ever studied the development or implementation of a process similar to FATCA to improve tax compliance involving foreign financial assets and offshore accounts; (k) who will be most affected by FATCA and have concerns been raised by entities such as, but not limited to, (i) interests groups, (ii) stakeholder groups, (iii) hedge funds; and (l) will FATCA affect different saving vehicles such as, but not limited to, (i) Registered Retirement Savings Plans, (ii) Registered Education Savings Plans, (iii) Registered Disability Savings Plans, (iv) Tax-Free Savings Accounts?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 13th, 2012]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) responses to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR): (a) according to the government’s analysis, do the IRS provisions comply with the provisions of the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America With Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital and its amending Protocol (2007); (b) are there Canadian exemptions to FBAR; (c) has Canada negotiated the FBAR provisions with United States Treasury Officials or the IRS, (i) at what time was the government made aware of these provisions, (ii) how long did it take for Canada to respond to the changes made by the IRS and the United States Treasury; (d) how will the government ensure that the CRA does not act on behalf of the IRS to collect revenues and penalties; (e) has Canada informed dual citizens about their tax obligations resulting from FBAR; (f) what was the number of exchanges of information between Canada and the United States of America this year and during the past ten years regarding FBAR, (i) has the CRA set internal deadlines to be able to respond to exchange of information requests in a timely manner, (ii) will Canada work to improve bilateral cooperation on this issue, (iii) has there been an increase of exchange of information requests at the CRA due to FBAR; (g) will the government lose revenue as a result of the implementation of FBAR; (h) what are the cost implications emanating from FBAR (i) for the government, (ii) for the CRA, (iii) for Canadian banks, (iv) who will absorb these costs, (v) are there other types of non-financial costs such as efficiency or fairness reductions; (i) how many complaints has the CRA received regarding FBAR or related vexatious inquiries by the IRS, (i) what are the main complaints, (ii) what has the CRA done concerning these complaints, (iii) what department at the CRA is in charge of dealing with complaints of this nature, (iv) will the CRA cut Full-Time Equivalents from that department or reduce its funding, (v) has the office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman looked into the matter; (j) will FBAR prevent double taxation of pre-migration gain; (k) has there been an increase in arbitration cases due to active procedures by the IRS, (i) what departments are most affected, (ii) has the CRA cut Full-Time Equivalents from each of these affected departments or reduced their funding; (l) will FBAR affect different saving vehicles such as, but not limited to, (i) Registered Retirement Savings Plans, (ii) Registered Education Savings Plans, (iii) Registered Disability Savings Plans, (iv) Tax-Free Savings Accounts; and (m) how many Canadian-American dual citizens are affected by FBAR and does Canada have contact information for the dual citizens affected by FBAR?

[The Economy, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are talking nonsense about the numbers. Although the unemployment rate may have dipped slightly, it is certainly not because any jobs were created. The unemployment rate fell because thousands of discouraged Canadians, especially young people, stopped looking for work. That is very worrisome.

The Conservatives are playing with the lives of an entire generation by refusing to take concrete action to create jobs. Will the government take the money that it gives in gifts to large corporations and use it to invest in job creation for people today?