Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2016

Paris Agreement

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot of talk about economic problems related to climate change. We hear about fighting climate change, about how terrible it is, about how it causes economic hardship.

Still, we cannot forget the problems we are facing right now. Climate change affects the economy on both individual and social levels. Consider droughts and floods, for example. There was another major flood in Drummondville this year. Many people were affected, insurance companies were overloaded, and there was added pressure on the city to deal with all of the needs. Not fighting climate change has its own set of consequences.

According to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, doing nothing to fight climate change could cost us billions, much more that it would cost to take action now. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not exactly sure what the member was asking, but most Canadians, no matter which province they are from, believe in reducing greenhouse gases. Yes, we should act now, but we should not act without consulting the provinces, municipalities, industries, and people because they have been doing exactly what we are talking about for a number of years. Lots of companies, lots of municipalities, lots of individuals have been very innovative with greenhouse gas savings. I think we all have to work together.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Honoré-Mercier.

I am very proud to stand here today to add my voice to those supporting the ratification of the Paris agreement.

We know that our climate is changing. We also know that dramatic changes in our climate have disproportionately affected those most vulnerable in the world, including, most notably, children.

Canada has a responsibility to be a leader when it comes to tackling this very real and pressing issue. In ratifying this agreement, Canada has made a public commitment to set and achieve the climate target the world needs.

Our government knows that transitioning to a sustainable low carbon economy is the only way we can achieve greater economic prosperity in a responsible way. The ratification of this agreement is a historic step to ensuring that we leave the world a cleaner and more prosperous place for our children and generations to come.

I am very proud of the collaborative approach that our government has taken as we negotiated this agreement and the work that has been done since. At every step of the way, we have engaged with our partners at the provincial and territorial level, with indigenous groups, with industry, and with environmental groups. This kind of inclusive decision-making is the only way to achieve meaningful results that will work for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I know that we will continue in that spirit as we move forward in meeting these obligations.

We go into this agreement with our eyes wide open. Signing and ratifying is the easy part. Then the real work begins. Setting targets is important, but those targets mean very little if there is no plan to achieve them.

I specifically want to thank and commend my colleague, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, for her hard work and leadership on this file.

Our team has been clear. Reaching these targets and helping Canada transition to a low carbon economy will require a whole-of-government approach. From the construction of green infrastructure to responsible management of our natural resources, to ensuring that we have a workforce ready to thrive in a new global marketplace, we need all voices at the table, working together, to ensure that we are successful.

Earlier today, the Prime Minister announced in the House the implementation of a national price on pollution. This is critically important to meeting the Paris agreement's targets. Our provincial and territorial governments recognize this. In fact, in the absence of past federal leadership, some have already moved ahead. Eighty-five per cent of Canadians now live in provinces that have put a price on carbon pollution. While it is encouraging and impressive, this piecemeal effort is not enough. For Canada to be successful in reducing our emissions overall, we need coordination, support, and leadership at the federal level.

As the Prime Minister announced earlier, the government proposes that in provinces and territories with a direct price on carbon pollution, the price will start at a minimum of $10 per tonne in 2018, rising each year by $10 to $50 per tonne in 2022. Provinces and territories with a cap-and-trade system will also need a 2030 emissions reduction target equal to or greater than Canada's 30% reduction target. By doing so in a responsible way and increasing the price on pollution over the next five years, territorial and provincial governments will have the time they need to design a system of carbon pollution pricing that works best for them. The federal government will work in partnership with them on implementation. I have every confidence in our collective success.

Speaking of partnership, I would be remiss if I did not mention the great work being done at a local level.

Recognizing the need for action, the region of Durham, which includes my riding of Whitby, developed a community climate change local action plan in 2012. This comprehensive strategy lays out detailed actions that can be undertaken across the region to address climate change. It also established an advisory board that is responsible for positioning Durham region as a leader in addressing climate change issues by developing a strategy that includes mitigation, adaptation, and resiliency.

That is the kind of proactive leadership we need to embrace and support at all levels if we are going to make progress. Indeed, the action taken today will augment the good work being done by communities across Canada to strengthen our response to climate change.

While important, putting a price on carbon is just one of several important steps our government is taking to reduce our emissions. Earlier this year, I was honoured to accompany the Prime Minister on a state visit to Washington. From that visit came a comprehensive agreement for our two countries to work closely together to address climate change. By coordinating with our closest ally and trading partner on issues like reducing methane emissions, advancing climate action at the global level, and co-operation on clean energy technology, we multiply and strengthen our own efforts.

I would like to talk briefly about some the steps our government has already taken to reach the targets in the Paris agreement. Specifically, in budget 2016, we made significant investments that will help us transition to a low carbon economy. This includes $20 billion to establish the low carbon economy fund, which will support provincial and territorial actions that materially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, we recognize the vital role that development of clean technology will play in combatting climate change.

Canada can and must be a world leader in developing cutting-edge technologies that will power the planet in decades to come. Accordingly, the budget provides more than $1 billion over the next four years to support the development of clean energy technology.

Earlier this year, I hosted a climate change town hall in my riding of Whitby. From that meeting, it was clear that my constituents believe that the government's priority should be preparing Canada to lead the clean technology revolution. Budget 2016, along with our ambitious innovation agenda, developed in partnership with educational and research institutions and industry makes the investment to get us there.

Additionally, we are making massive investments to help communities prepare for, mitigate, and reduce the impact of climate change. Budget 2016 proposes to invest over $5 billion over the next five years in practical infrastructure that protects communities and supports Canada's ongoing transition to a clean growth economy.

The budget also contains more than $3.4 billion over three years to upgrade and improve public transit systems across Canada. Better public transit means less cars on the road producing emissions. As the MP for a riding where many of my constituents travel to Toronto by car every day, I am thrilled with these investments to reduce emissions while improving my constituents' quality of life.

My 12-year-old daughter, Candice, is an Earth Ranger's ambassador. A couple of years ago, she aggressively raised funds for the endangered Oregon spotted frog. Our young people know the devastation of climate change and are working to combat it.

I am proud that budget 2016 provided up to $197 million over five years to restore ocean and freshwater science monitoring and research activities. This will ensure that Canada's oceans, coasts, waterways, and fisheries are healthy, sustainable, and profitable for generations to come.

Canadians right across the country are calling for their governments to act urgently on climate change. The ratification of the Paris agreement is just one step, but an important one. It is Canada's public commitment to doing its part. There is much work to come and challenges that will need to be addressed. I urge everyone in the chamber to join me in supporting ratification. I truly believe that it is something that future generations will look back on and be proud of.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is obviously very committed to our finally taking action on climate change.

The government announced today that it would put a price on carbon, but we are getting feedback from a number of people who have worked on these issues for quite some time, like Clean Energy Canada, who are experts on pursuing avenues for cleaner power sources, and the David Suzuki Foundation.

Clean Energy Canada has said that on its own, the carbon price scheduled today will not get the job done. It is only one piece of the puzzle. They argue that the federal and provincial governments will need to pair carbon pricing with smart regs and a transition to clean power across the economy to get Canada on track to hit the national targets.

The Suzuki Foundation has said that the federal government will need to rely on additional policies to reduce emissions to meet the 2030 targets, given the modest carbon price compared to existing provincial policies. These additional emission reduction approaches should include quicker phase out of coal-fired electricity, a national energy public transportation infrastructure, and that the subsidies for the fossil fuel industry be taken away.

The member is saying that the government has said it has done enough and that we can now ratify the agreement. Does she agree with that, or with the people I mentioned who state that more needs to be done?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was very clear in my speech that the announcement today was one step we took to reduce our carbon emissions in this country.

As I mentioned in my speech—and I am pretty sure it was clear—the government has also included in budget 2016, long before today, $2 billion to establish a low-carbon economy fund, $1 billion over the next four years to support and develop clean energy technology, $5 billion over the next five years in practical infrastructure that supports and protects communities, and $3.4 billion over the next three years to upgrade and improve public transit.

We know that this is not the only solution, that we need to have a whole-of-government collaborative approach when we are dealing with climate change; and we are committed to doing so on the ground with research, with communities, and with our provincial partners.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Whitby, she has a lot of people who live in urban settings and probably will not see as big a cost associated with this tax grab, which is going to come out with this $50-a-tonne carbon tax, compared to what rural Canadians are going to face, what northern communities are going to have to deal with, and how it is going to impact agriculture. However, one way they are going to see it, especially those who are living on fixed and low incomes, is in the price of food.

We know that a $50-a-tonne carbon tax will increase the price of fuel by 11.5¢ per litre. That translates into higher production costs, higher transportation costs for getting products to market, and higher costs for growing those products. It will actually disadvantage locally produced foods over imported foods, since trucks coming in from the U.S. will bring it in at a cheaper rate on cheaper U.S. fuel compared to what our truckers are going to pay here in Canada.

Could my colleague from Whitby explain to me how she will explain to her own constituents why they are going to be paying so much for locally grown produce?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, Whitby is composed of both a rural and an urban setting. Most of my constituents do travel to Toronto for work, and so they do know how much the price of fuel affects their daily living.

However, what is the alterative? Is it doing nothing?

We know that climate change affects agricultural industries, which will ultimately cause an increase in the price of our food, an increase in the amount of insurance that my constituents in Whitby pay, and increases in fuel charges that will come from the devastating impacts of climate change on our economy.

We cannot sit back and continue to do nothing, as we have done for the past 10 years. We really need to step up our game, and we have done so in our budget; we have done so with this announcement today.

We are working in partnership with our communities, provinces, and territories, and we have a leadership at the government level, which was announced today by our Prime Minister, which allows us to move forward in a very progressive way to be able to tackle climate change across our country.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I would like to get back to the Paris agreement because we got a little off topic.

I want to start by saying that our government is committed to strengthening the middle class and our communities from coast to coast. As part of that commitment, we are creating an innovative and green economy.

The effects of climate change are a real threat to Canadians and all of our communities. That is why our government has committed to doing its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As the hon. Minister of Infrastructure and Communities has said, the evidence for climate change is undeniable, contrary to what some of our colleagues say. It is a fact. We see it every day. We must continue to measure these changes and rely on solid, factual evidence.

In addition, the record response rate to the long form census reveals that Canadians realize that these data are an absolutely vital tool. Canadians are ready and willing to take part in this exercise. They want the government to demonstrate rigour and transparency, and they know that this requires reliable data and sound evidence.

That is why Infrastructure Canada and Statistics Canada are working together on a joint data collection initiative. The primary goal is to gather extensive, standardized, evidence-based information regarding the inventory and condition of public infrastructure in Canada, at all levels.

Similarly, the government also made considerable efforts to consult stakeholders all across the country, from every province and region, to ensure that the various aspects of our infrastructure plan meet the priority needs of Canadians.

In early September, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities met with the ministers responsible for infrastructure across Canada. It was the first time that those representatives all gathered around the same table to discuss the needs and priorities of communities and how we want to build the towns and cities of tomorrow. Cities are very much at the heart of our priorities and our future.

The minister worked closely with our partners in order to gather useful information, which was then used to develop phase 1 of our infrastructure plan. We will use the same information to develop phase 2.

Our program is centred around three priorities: public transit infrastructure, social infrastructure, and green infrastructure.

As part of our investment in green infrastructure in phase 1, we plan to integrate the concept of climate resiliency into the National Building Code, which serves as a model. We will do the same for the other codes, standards, and guides relevant to key sectors in public infrastructure.

We will also fund infrastructure development for alternative transportation fuels. This is absolutely necessary. I am talking about electric vehicle charging stations and natural gas and hydrogen refuelling stations. All this will also help us support technology demonstration programs that advance electric vehicle charging technology. We are always looking ahead.

It has been mentioned once or twice before, but we are going to make significant investments in public transit to repair or replace the existing fleet of vehicles.

This is absolutely essential because we are talking about workforce mobility, access to skilled workers for companies, but also a clear reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

We are currently working with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on improving the capacity of cities and communities to identify and address the challenges related to climate change, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For that we created a special fund of $75 million. We have already mentioned that, but it bears repeating. We are allocating the necessary funding in order to do what we say we are going to do.

Before the launch of phase 1 of the investment program, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities held countless consultations with provincial, territorial, and municipal partners, as well as other stakeholders. That is how to build a plan: by consulting, and by working on the priorities of our cities, of our communities, and of all Canadians. I can assure my colleagues that we are doing the same thing for phase 2 of our infrastructure plan.

A common theme in all these consultations was the need to build sustainable and green communities that use efficient public transit that gets cars off the road. We need communities that capitalize on green infrastructure to grow sustainably and that are resilient to the effects of climate change.

We have collected all that information and we are analyzing the data from this entire consultation process in order to prepare phase 2 of our plan. In phase 2, we will incorporate structural changes when rebuilding our infrastructure, always keeping in mind that the priority is to improve Canadians' quality of life as well as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make our country much greener.

Sometimes we take for granted what we have. We think that things will always be there. We tell ourselves that they will be there. That is how we sometimes think of our infrastructure. We use it every day, without thinking about it, until it no longer works, is no longer accessible, or until it is being rebuilt. Our infrastructure is a valuable asset.

That is why, as I was saying earlier, we are currently working with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to create an asset management fund. It would be a new $50-million capacity-building fund that would support the use of asset management best practices across the country. We know that asset management plans guide how core infrastructure assets are to be built, renewed, operated, maintained, and replaced. This planning helps maximize the use of public dollars, which is very important.

The information we obtain from all this work will help policy-makers and asset owners to manage, plan, and operate their infrastructure assets. It will also provide data on key results to inform our plan to invest in green infrastructure and public transit, two things that closely align with our climate change objectives.

Generations ago, our nation made strategic investments, for example in the national railway system and the Trans-Canada Highway, in order to improve the future prosperity and quality of life of every generation that followed. We need to continue to do that.

In the coming decades, we know that our communities must become cleaner and more resilient to climate change, no matter where they are. We need to help build communities where congestion and emissions are reduced, buildings are more energy efficient, and green energy is harnessed. That is something that we need to do for future generations. We need to do it for our children and our grandchildren.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague from Honoré-Mercier, but I must have misunderstood. He started off saying that he wanted to focus on the Paris agreement rather than infrastructure, but he had a lot to say about infrastructure, so I will ask a question about infrastructure.

Can the member tell us why there is such a big difference, to say the least, between the Liberal Party's campaign promise on public transit and the amount in the 2015 budget, which is about 50% less than what it announced? I think it is once again speaking out of both sides of its mouth when it says it is going to invest. It is investing, but it is not investing nearly enough to make real progress.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague might have missed an important piece of information about how we are implementing our infrastructure plan gradually. As my colleague knows, there are two phases to the plan. Phase 1 is more about rehabilitating and repairing our public transit system. Quebec is getting $923 million for that. We are making major investments everywhere, from Ontario to Vancouver and all across Canada.

Phase 2 investments will be much more structural and long term. We will do what we promised to do. Our word is our bond; those of us on this side of the House do not speak out of both sides of our mouths.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my seatmate is a great man, one who ultimately has done a fantastic job for all Canadians with his efforts in regard to the infrastructure program. Today we are talking about our environment, the Paris agreement, and the whole carbon issue. At the same time, we have seen an aggressive government with my seatmate's minister and his efforts in really advancing infrastructure.

Would my colleague not agree, as I am sure he will, how important it is that we promote, through government initiatives such as infrastructure, and invest in green technology?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have always found my colleague to have excellent judgment.

Obviously, investing in infrastructure is an important part of our strategy to combat greenhouse gas emissions. There are a number of ways to do so, one of which, as I mentioned in response to my colleague's question, is to invest in public transit. Why public transit? Because that gets cars off the road, gives businesses in the regions access to quality skilled labour, and ultimately reduces greenhouse gas emissions. There is a direct link. Just as there is a link between the economy and the environment, there is also a direct link between infrastructure and the fight against climate change.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech, but again, we are focusing a lot on funding public transit.

We heard a lot about working with provinces and municipalities. I would say, referring to my other colleague's statement, this is an aggressive government. This is a government that is imposing this on the provinces. The vast majority of Albertans do not want a carbon tax. The vast majority of Saskatchewan residents do not want a carbon tax.

The government will be funding infrastructure for public transit. There is not a lot of public transit in rural Canada. In my entire riding there is not one single bus service. There is barely a taxi service. I would like to see how the Liberals would feel about addressing the disproportionate impact on rural Canada this program will have.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, clearly, the infrastructure program is much broader than that and includes investments in public transit as well as investments in things like water, waste water, local infrastructure, and social housing. All of these program elements will directly benefit my colleague's constituents. They will have a direct and immediate impact on his riding. That is why this huge program brought forward by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is so important to building the Canada of tomorrow.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with an hon. member who is speaking tomorrow to this debate that is being held over three days. This debate is very important for the future not only of our country, but also of our society and of our young people, our children and grandchildren.

I am pleased to speak to this motion to ratify the Paris agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This agreement was signed by Canada in New York on April 22, 2016. Then there was the Vancouver declaration on March 3, 2016, when the Prime Minister met with his provincial counterparts.

Unfortunately, while provincial ministers were gathered in Montreal today, the government made an announcement without having consulted them. It is hard to believe, and I am sure that they were shocked when they found out. That is a poor way to engage in politics if the government wants to sit down with its provincial counterparts and make progress. The Liberals said they wanted to do politics differently.

The Paris agreement and the fight against climate change are of vital importance. Earlier, several reports were mentioned, including the report set aside by the Conservatives. Unfortunately, the Conservatives disbanded the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. The only table that for years brought together the economy and the environment was abolished. It had reported that inaction on fighting climate change could cost up to $50 billion over the coming years.

There have been droughts, forest fires and floods. Unfortunately, there was a flood in the municipality of Drummond this summer that resulted in huge costs not just for citizens, but also for our towns and society as a whole. We are under tremendous pressure to adapt to climate change.

That is why we have to take the bull by the horns, to take our medicine, as I always tell my girls. Though they may not like the taste, we have to find an effective remedy for what ails them.

This is not the first time that the NDP has called for real measures to combat climate change. In fact, we are pioneers in this area. A famous and honourable member of this place, our late leader, Jack Layton, introduced a bill to combat climate change on two occasions. The second time, in the mid 2000s, the House of Commons passed the bill.

Jack Layton tried to pass the climate change accountability act on two occasions, and the Liberals were in agreement at the time. However, when the bill went to the Senate the first time, it died on the Order Paper when an election was called.

The second time, the bill was killed by the Senate, the chamber of unelected senators then dominated by Conservatives. It was scandalous and Jack was furious. It was a truly unique situation that we never want to see repeated in the history of our modern democracy.

Unfortunately, it did. Matthew Kellway, who was my colleague, introduced this bill again. Everyone agreed to support the bill, but, unfortunately, we did not have time to get through all the stages and pass it.

What did the bill that the Liberals supported several times say? It set out the commitments that we need to make if we are taking this issue seriously, and they are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 or by 34% by 2025, compared to 1990 levels. I am talking here about old dates, the old Copenhagen targets that the Conservative government was aware of. I will come back to this.

I am going to engage in a bit of whimsy. Let us imagine that, in 2015, Canadians voted for an NDP government. Our leader would have gone to Paris with the other leaders or delegates of the opposition party. We would have said that we were very happy to limit global warming to below 2°C and even better if it was below 1.5°C. Then, we would have come back here to the House of Commons and ratified that agreement. We would have re-introduced Jack Layton's climate change accountability act. We would have been happy to do this because we would have been serious about it, we would have had serious targets, and we would have led the way.

However, the people chose a Liberal government. That is democracy.

At that point, we told ourselves that the Liberal government would practice politics differently, that it would have a different way of doing things, and that it would set much higher targets. However, from looking at the targets, we see that this government is still going forward with the target from 2005. It is no longer the 1990 target. It is the target that the Conservatives set in 2005 to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030.

We do not understand. What happened? Was it the Liberals or the Conservatives who got elected? We are thoroughly confused when it comes to the target. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. It is the same old story.

This is so disappointing. We recently got some bad news on the climate change front because the Liberal government had promised that major projects would be subject to a proper environmental assessment going forward.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in 2012 and the years that followed, during which time draconian changes were made to environmental assessment. For one thing, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was totally gutted. It was stripped of its teeth, its soul, its energy, its power, and its credibility. The Liberals told us they would fix the problem, but major projects are still being assessed using the Conservatives' process. Greenhouse gas emissions are still not part of the equation.

Recently, the Liberals' application of the Conservatives' process resulted in approval for Pacific NorthWest LNG, a liquefied natural gas project. Actually, not natural gas, but rather gas extracted by hydrofracking. There was a big debate about this in Quebec. Our leader has long been calling for the secret ingredients that go into frac water to be made public. Knowing what comes back out is also important. The water that comes out has created some huge pollution problems.

I will close by saying that we still have a lot of work to do. We will support ratification of the Paris agreement, but so much more must be done. For example, it is urgent that we change the environmental assessment process for major projects.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, listening today to my friends in the NDP and my friends in the Conservatives, one gets the impression that the government of the day has actually gotten it right. When we hear the Conservatives speak, they say that we have gone too far and that we are going to be damaging the economy. When we hear the New Democrats stand in their places, they say that the government has not gone far enough and we should be doing more in regard to the issue.

Would the member not acknowledge that it is important that we recognize that we can in fact do more for our environment and have a healthy economy, that we can in fact do both at the same time? Would he not acknowledge that fact?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will respond very quickly.

Absolutley, we must do more. One of the things I would like to see the Liberal government do immediately, for example, is to not go ahead with the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, because it did not take greenhouse gas emissions into account.

The increase in greenhouse gas emissions is going to be huge. If the government wants a serious plan, it needs to be serious about assessing major projects like the Pacific NorthWest LNG project.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Drummond will have three and a half minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House next considers this matter.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, the issue I want to debate here this evening has to do with a question I asked the Minister of National Revenue in the House on September 26 regarding the Panama Papers.

The matter of the Panama Papers, like that of tax evasion and tax havens, should be a primary concern for the Canadian government. Unfortunately, in this case, as was the case with past leaked documents concerning banking institutions in Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and, with respect to KPMG, the Isle of Man, the federal government appears to have very little interest in getting to the bottom of these matters. Of course, the Liberals claim otherwise, saying that they are making investments. At the end of the day, however, their efforts are completely ineffective because they are not addressing the underlying issues.

I recognize that the current Liberal government is not to blame for this problem. In fact, this problem has been perpetuated by the various successive governments we have had over the past several years.

The Panama Papers are problematic because, as everyone knows, the government has information on the taxpayers who used the firm Mossack Fonseca and who used shadow companies, not systematically but in many cases, to get out of paying taxes here in Canada.

The government, like other governments before it, does not seem to be in much of a hurry to investigate all this or report on investigations it has completed.

This reminds me a lot of the KPMG and Isle of Man situation, which was even worse, in my opinion. In that case, as in the case of the Panama Papers, the government said it exposed KPMG's scheme. It also said that it went to great lengths to investigate.

Thanks to the work of journalists at Radio-Canada and CBC, we learned that what actually happened was that the Canada Revenue Agency offered amnesty to those who were caught bending the rules, and as a result they would have to pay only the taxes they owed anyway, without penalty or interest.

When middle-class taxpayers make a technical mistake, which is often unintentional, and are flagged by the Canada Revenue Agency, I can assure the House that they are asked to pay not just the amount owing, but interest as well. In some cases, that can be double or triple the original amount.

However, wealthy Canadians who voluntarily used a tax scheme, face no consequences, are told not to do it again, and just to repay the money originally owing. In my opinion, the fact that the government does not take this situation seriously is truly unfortunate. Although the government says that it is taking action, there is no evidence of that. There is no way we can see any action.

The government is also not tackling other problems at the Canada Revenue Agency, namely transparency and accountability. It is impossible to obtain any information from this agency because it hides behind privacy issues. This may sometimes be legitimate, but in many cases it is an excuse. The agency hides behind various excuses to avoid being accountable for its activities to the Parliament of Canada. I witnessed this several times at meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like the government to expand on the answer given by the minister, who did not really say much, about what the government is doing in the case of the Panama Papers.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I have had discussions with my colleague about the Panama Papers, tax evasion, and international tax avoidance on several occasions. This evening, I am pleased to once again talk about some of the measures that the Liberal government is taking to combat tax evasion and international tax avoidance.

First, we began by making a significant investment of $444 million to enable the Canada Revenue Agency to do more to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. That is the promise that we made to the middle class and that is what we are doing.

Canada has the opportunity to detect, audit, and prosecute tax evaders within the country and abroad. Our government continues to work to combat this phenomenon and maintain a fair taxation system for Canadians.

With regard to my hon. colleague's comments on the Liechtenstein list, I would like to reiterate the facts. After examining this list, the Office of the Auditor General indicated that the Canada Revenue Agency had used the information from that list correctly. In the report that he tabled in the spring of 2014, the Auditor General also confirmed that the CRA had the tools it needed to detect, correct, and deter non-compliance among taxpayers who engage in aggressive tax planning and that it was using those tools effectively.

Our government took measures regarding the names divulged in the Panama Papers and made them a top priority. The CRA is examining over 2,600 cases related to the Panama Papers and has identified 85 high-risk taxpayers so far.

In addition to the work related to the Panama Papers, the CRA is also currently conducting 750 audits and 20 criminal investigations focused on individuals who own property abroad. The CRA was able to do this because of the many effective tools it uses to collect intelligence, including information from international money transfers, the offshore tax informant program, treaty partners, and the analysis of data received from other intelligence sources.

The additional investigations launched since April have uncovered 20,000 transactions between Canadian taxpayers and three foreign tax administrations, totalling $7 billion. The Agency has started contacting these taxpayers, and investigations are under way.

In closing, I can say that, starting now, the Agency will be targeting four other tax administrations and financial institutions a year, without giving notice, to ensure that the tax system remains a fair and equitable system.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, none of that answers my main question on the problem of accountability and transparency at the Canada Revenue Agency.

For example, I want to relay a conversation that took place at the Standing Committee on Finance between the Minister of National Revenue and a senior official. That conversation was about a letter that had been signed by another official at the CRA. The letter was in fact an offer of amnesty to taxpayers who had been caught in the KPMG scheme on the Isle of Man.

We asked the minister whether the letter was genuine. She said that she could not confirm its authenticity. We asked whether she had looked into whether it was genuine. She said she could not comment on the authenticity of the letter. I asked her whether it was true that 21 taxpayers had already signed that letter. She said she could not comment on the authenticity of the letter. When we asked her the question again, she referred the question to the official who was there with her, Mr. Gallivan. He said that 16 people had signed the letter. That leads us to believe that 16 people signed a letter for which the minister cannot confirm—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague knows perfectly well that section 241 of the Income Tax Act is about confidentiality of information. We cannot disclose personal information about a taxpayer or an individual. That is why he got an answer that provided general information about 16 taxpayers. Protecting personal information is an absolute priority for us. We have to protect that information.

We are determined to crack down on tax cheats who choose to participate in tax schemes that place an unfair burden on middle-class Canadians. The CRA has received funding to update those tax schemes and find the people who are threatening the integrity of our tax system.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am following up on my earlier question this year about the Liberal government's decision to appeal the Federal Court decision to ban fish farms in B.C. from using diseased Atlantic salmon in open net pens. I simply could not understand why the Liberals would continue with this Conservative approach and put wild B.C. salmon at risk.

The minister responded that he would discuss the matter with the Minister of Justice. Following my question and mounting public pressure, the government announced it would be postponing the appeal hearing until October.

Well, it is now October and I would like to know if the government will be continuing with its appeal or if it will do the right thing and protect wild salmon?

Stopping the transfer of diseased fish is very important because heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, or HSMI as it is known, is a serious disease that devastates farmed salmon populations.

Scientific evidence suggests that HSMI poses a serious threat to wild populations. It causes severe lethargy, ultimately robbing salmon of their ability to feed, swim upstream, spawn and rendering them helpless against predators.

Open net farms are located on critical wild salmon migration routes, including in the Discovery Islands. If this disease were to spread to wild salmon, which are already under threat, the results could be catastrophic.

When biologist Alex Morton first discovered the piscine reovirus, or PRV as it is called, which is believed to be the precursor to HSMI in farmed salmon in B.C., the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the B.C. government insisted the virus was harmless.

Alex Morton, with the help of Ecojustice, took the department to Federal Court over its aquaculture licensing practices. The department insisted PRV did not threaten wild salmon.

The court ruled in favour of Alex Morton and ordered the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to stop granting licences that allowed companies to transfer disease-carrying fish into open net salmon farms in the ocean.

The government appealed this decision and was set to return to court on May 26. That is when the government claimed that it needed more time to review the case and announced that it would be delaying its decision until October.

Days later, DFO scientist Dr. Kristi Miller confirmed the presence of HSMI by testing Atlantic salmon samples collected at a B.C. fish farm. This finding confirmed action must be taken to prevent the spread of this deadly salmon disease.

Even if it has dropped its appeal, I hope the parliamentary secretary can clarify a few things for me with respect to the dangers posed by diseased farmed Atlantic salmon.

The government claims to embrace the recommendations of the Cohen Commission of Inquiry. Recommendations 18 and 19 state that if salmon farms in the Discovery Islands pose more than a minimal risk of serious harm, those farms should cease operations, and no new farms should be created.

Will the department respect the precautionary principle and prohibit salmon farming in the Discovery Islands? If not, why does HSMI not qualify as more than a minimal risk?