Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for your patience. I'll make sure not to call on it too often so that your patience doesn't become legendary.
We are debating a motion that I think is very substantive. Obviously, as far as Bill C‑4 is concerned, we prefer to study it clause by clause. We understand that the ways and means motion means that the policy is already applied.
We're not making any assumptions about what might happen. However, the government has occasionally managed its ways and means motions somewhat inadequately in the past. As a result, the Canada Revenue Agency has difficulty managing tax policies implemented under certain ways and means measures. We know that the Canada Revenue Agency is already sufficiently confused these days when it comes to its internal affairs.
Obviously, it's good to carry out a clause-by-clause study. It's good to hear from ministers. I think we passed this bill on division in the House, and a number of things will be consensual.
As far as tax havens are concerned, I will briefly say that the Bloc Québécois's work on this subject has been recognized internationally since 2015. It's undeniable that Canada has fallen behind, and that the Canada Revenue Agency is doing work that, at the very least, should be questioned on this aspect.
Take, for example, KPMG's aggressive tax avoidance schemes. That firm was criminally charged in the United States, and in Canada it was the subject of a secret deal with the Canada Revenue Agency under the previous government.
Right now, we have a minister responsible for national revenue, and that's good. In the previous government, Ms. Lebouthillier basically told us that the agency was independent and that it was like a virus, that it fed itself. She said she didn't want to touch it. Then there was Ms. Bibeau, who was punished as a result of her appointment as minister responsible for the agency. Today, we have a real minister who, for the first time in my time in Parliament, is taking action. For example, he is asking the agency for a 100-day action plan.
At the time, we told Ms. Lebouthillier that she had the right to launch an investigation under the act. She told us to join the police force if we weren't happy. That's what she told us here in committee.
On top of that, we have the Prime Minister's own words. During the election campaign, he said that the fact that these companies are in tax havens was not a problem, that it was just because of withholding taxes. According to him, when money intended for pension funds is managed and remitted to pension funds, taxes are paid by pensioners. That's absolutely correct. However, the Prime Minister forgot to say that there are more than just pension funds in tax havens.
In addition, the institutions that manage money also coexist with family trusts. Those are immense riches that often stay there forever and are never returned to the beneficiaries. That wealth is used to guarantee loans, borrow money and ensure that institutions never pay taxes. That kind of a situation requires us to ask questions about the mechanisms involved and about those institutions. I think these issues are of interest to the taxpayer. What's more, the agency's tax recovery rate is low and the agency does not perform well by international standards. That remains the case when we compare these results to those of Revenu Québec. That is why, obviously, Quebec should have a single tax return. That's a very good thing.
I just want to make sure of one thing, and I'm appealing to my Conservative colleagues on this. It's good to hear from ministers first and then do the clause-by-clause study. We've heard today that ministers have very complicated schedules. I understand that it could take some time for them to appear before the committee.
In terms of drafting the motion, I just want to make sure that we can start the study on tax havens while we wait for ministers to appear. That would prevent us from getting stuck and not being able to hear from ministers or start the other study.
I would like my colleague to confirm that this is the intent of his motion. My understanding is that we would begin this study concurrently. I just want to make sure that we will be able to begin the study on tax havens while waiting for ministers to appear.