Debates of Nov. 21st, 2016

Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about how the government likes transparency. We all know that the government loves consultation, but I wondered if she could comment on the fact that the Liberal dominated trade committee has ruled out any possibility for concerned and knowledgeable Canadians to make written submissions to it unless they are among the few who are already appearing at the committee, unlike with the TPP, on which the trade committee received thousands of submissions. Is that because most of those submissions had negative things to say about the TPP. Is that what the Liberals are afraid of happening in this case?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have just finished consulting Canadians on Canada Post. I do not think anyone is afraid of negativity or input. There are certain rules that committees follow, and it is my understanding that the trade committee did not rule out input from any other witnesses. I am not sure whether the member is misinformed, but transparency is important and that is why we have been extremely transparent in getting input from everyone.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I feel it is important to rethink the transition plan for the dairy industry and fine cheese producers.

The Canada-European Union trade agreement will result in huge losses for supply-managed industries. Last week, the Government of Quebec and a number of key industry players said that $350 million is not enough. They need more help to handle the transition and mitigate the negative impact of the Canada-European Union trade agreement. In Quebec, the industry is asking for more than $750 million.

Can the member confirm that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is not only listening, but that he will actually do something to help Quebec's dairy industry and fine cheese producers?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the same question was posed to the Minister of International Trade, who has worked with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to ensure that the trade agreement really is beneficial to our farmers. When we open up our trading partnerships and our markets, there is supply and demand. Also, when we reduce tariffs, it makes goods cheaper and makes different varieties of goods accessible to different populations. I am sure that the minister has taken great care to ensure that there is enough protection.

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

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about CETA, but we have seen the government take a fairly aggressive approach to trade-related issues, such as the issue of canola from the prairies going to China and the Ukraine trade agreement that has been signed off on. The Minister of International Trade is working quite diligently and hard to make sure that the trade file is properly looked after, because at the end of the day, it will create jobs for Canada's middle class.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are an interconnected world. If we want to increase the middle class, trade is an important opportunity. I thank the Prime Minister for going to South America to build better relations and better trade treaties so that we have wider exposure to markets, rather than sticking with one country.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to first thank my colleagues for participating in this important debate.

I am delighted to rise in the House today to speak about the protections and guarantees of the canada-european union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA, and how this agreement will protect hard-won social progress and guarantee the prosperity of all Canadians.

When our government came to power, there were many obstacles in the way of finalizing CETA. Support for CETA from centre-left parties in Europe, which was necessary for CETA's ratification by the European Parliament, and also by countries such as Germany and France, was in doubt. Therefore, from the outset, one of the most important things our government did was to listen to the criticism, both in Canada and in Europe, to ensure that the agreement addressed legitimate concerns.

We worked with industry and civil society to ensure that economic gains would not hinder essential social progress and to address the issues that really matter to Canadians and Europeans: environmental protection, workers' rights, consumer health and safety, and the right of governments to regulate.

In co-operation with our European counterparts, our government made improvements to the agreement in order to strengthen it and make it the most progressive trade agreement negotiated by Canada and the European Union. Now that those changes have been made, countries like Germany and France strongly support it.

Making sure that trade and labour support each other is a priority for our government. The provisions of CETA on workers strengthen this principle since they include commitments to facilitate the sound governance of the workforce.

Under CETA, Canada and the European Union committed to adding their respective obligations with respect to international labour standards to their labour laws. More specifically, both parties committed to ensuring that their national laws and policies protect the fundamental principles and rights at work, including the right to freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced labour, and the elimination of discrimination.

Canada and the European Union also committed to seeking high levels of labour protection, enforcing labour laws, and not waiving or derogating from these laws in order to promote trade or attract investment. CETA provides for the establishment of civil society advisory groups responsible for providing their opinions and advice on any issues related to the agreement's labour provisions, as well as for the creation of a mechanism that will allow the public to share its concerns about the labour issues associated with these provisions. What is more, CETA encourages co-operation on labour files, especially through the exchange of information on best practices and co-operation in international forums.

The environment is another priority area for Canadians and Europeans.

In the CETA chapter on trade and the environment, Canada and the European Union reaffirmed their mutual commitment to ensure that strict environmental standards are met as part of the trade liberalization process.

Under CETA, Canada and the EU maintain the right to set their own priorities on the environment and to adopt or amend their own related legislation and policies accordingly. Canada and the EU are committed to ensuring high levels of environmental protection, effectively enforcing domestic environmental laws rather than weakening or deviating from these laws in favour of trade or attracting investment.

CETA includes a commitment to work together on shared environmental concerns. This might include issues such as climate change, conservation, and the sustainable use of natural resources.

Under CETA, environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand. For example, the chapter on trade and the environment includes a commitment to facilitate and promote the trade of products and services associated with environmental protection. Among other things, this means paying special attention to products and services that may contribute to mitigating climate change and stimulating renewable energy production. Clean technologies represent a key aspect of the government's approach to promoting sustainable economic growth and play a key role in allowing us to keep our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to achieve our objectives under the Paris agreement.

CETA's preamble recognizes that the agreement's provisions reaffirm the parties’ right to regulate within their respective territories to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, the environment, public morals, and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity.

The chapter on investment includes further clarifications on the right to regulate and reaffirms this right to achieve legitimate policy objectives.

Nothing in this agreement prevents governments from making regulations for the public good in areas like the environment, culture, safety, health, and conservation, from providing preferences to indigenous peoples, or from adopting measures to protect or promote Canadian culture.

Canadian and foreign investors alike must comply with all Canadian laws and regulations regarding the environment, labour standards, health care, and all building and safety codes. Nothing in CETA permits anyone who is selling a good, providing a service, or investing in Canada to be exempted from Canadian laws and regulations.

In all trade agreements, including CETA, Canada explicitly protects the environment, security, and social services, such as health care and education.

Under CETA, obligations regarding services and investments are fulfilled using a negative list approach. The use of this approach in CETA does not jeopardize the governments' ability to provide public services. In fact, the negative list approach provides Canada and the member states a more transparent way of targeting sectors or measures, such as those related to public health, education, and social services, where the parties want to maintain full control over policies.

Canada has been using the negative list approach for a very long time and is satisfied that CETA will continue to allow us the political flexibility to protect public services. What is more, no provision of CETA requires governments to privatize, subcontract, or deregulate their public services. Decisions regarding the delivery of public services are guided exclusively by domestic policy decisions.

As a result, CETA will compromise neither Canada's water quality standards, nor its regulations pertaining to water systems. Nothing in the free trade agreements that Canada has signed prevents the government from establishing standards to ensure that Canadians have access to safe drinking water.

No provision of any free trade agreement, including CETA, to which Canada is a party requires a government to privatize, resort to sub-contracting, or deregulate its water services. All businesses conducting these activities in Canada, whether Canadian or foreign, must comply with the laws and regulations in effect in Canada.

There is a major myth concerning CETA that we must dispel. I would like to set the record straight. None of the free trade agreements, including CETA, to which Canada is a party covers water in its natural state, that is, water in natural basins of water such as rivers, lakes, and streams, as a good or product for export.

The federal government has passed legislation and regulations to prohibit bulk water removal from water basins in boundary waters, no matter the reason, including export. Free trade agreements to which Canada is a party, including CETA, in no way compromise measures implemented by Canadian provinces to protect bodies of water within their jurisdiction.

Our government listened to people in the industry and civil society and worked with them to ensure that economic gains will not hinder essential social progress. Thanks to close collaboration with our European Union counterparts and a shared commitment to making CETA a progressive agreement, we addressed issues that really matter to Canadians and Europeans: the environment, workers' rights, consumer health and safety, and the right of governments to regulate.

To sum up, the CETA commitments that I just described are perfectly aligned with our existing progressive trade program and will ensure that economic gains do not come at the expense of the environment, workers, or matters of public interest, such as health and culture.

I support this bill and all of the benefits that it will bring to Canadians and the people of the European Union and its 28 member states.

I ask all hon. members to support this bill so that Canada can do its part to implement the agreement and continue to advance its progressive trade agenda.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech in the House.

It is important to talk about losses once again, because the dairy industry, including processors and the producers of Quebec's fine cheeses, are going to suffer immensely. The plan proposed by the previous Conservative government was an ambitious plan worth $4.3 billion, while the plan recently announced by the Liberals is much more modest. It includes $250 million for producers and $100 million for processors.

Last week the chairman of the Producteurs de lait du Québec told dairy farmers who had gathered for a general assembly that this plan to help our producers and processors is not enough. There are also a number of concerns regarding the production of fine cheeses. Will the $100 million be given to big companies? Will companies like Agropur and Saputo be eligible? I think average size producers will get about $5,000 in compensation. When the losses are in the $150-million-a-year range, does my colleague think that is enough?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that I have 37 dairy producers in the riding of Laurentides—Labelle. This is therefore a very important issue for us because we must look after our dairy producers.

In my view, the plan is a good first step. We need something to keep us competitive in the future and to ensure that we can operate in foreign markets where we currently do not have a solid presence. We have a lot of work to do. With a perfect agreement, all trade would flow both ways, but there would be no protections for our industry, supply management, and our culture. I believe that our plan strikes a good balance, but there is always much more to be done.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his excellent speech.

I believe that he spoke about some issues that are very important to his riding, where I know there are many dairy producers. Our colleague on the other side of the House asked these questions about producers, but I find it difficult to understand why the NDP is now asking the question while saying that it supports the $750 million.

Since the NDP promised to balance the budget if it were elected, it would never have been able to provide this kind of compensation. I believe that it is playing politics. When the NDP says that it supports producers' demands, it should also tell them that in order to balance the budget it would have to cut the amount of compensation for softwood lumber, for example. Therefore, I would ask my colleague what he thinks about comments to the effect that the NDP is playing politics with dairy producers.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think there is another issue here. If the NDP had been elected to office, it would not have signed CETA. The question would not have been asked. Since they promised to balance the budget, they would not have signed this agreement, so that issue is not relevant to the debate.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent presentation and feedback on this incredible trade deal.

When I look at investors, they are looking for stability and predictability when they decide to invest in other countries; and countries are looking to control the public agenda around the environment, labour, and different issues like that. In the past, countries tended to resolve disputes in a very difficult forum with arbitrators making the decisions.

This is a very progressive trade deal. There is a brand new tribunal formed. I wonder if my colleague would reflect on the ISDS provisions, and why this is a better trade deal for settlement of investor-state disputes.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the concerns that have been brought up about the investor-state dispute resolution systems that are being proposed.

As the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells said earlier, it is really important that we have some kind of mechanism in place. We cannot have a situation where people come to invest, the rules change mid-game, and there is no option to continue. It is important that there is something, and I think this is one of the more progressive things I have seen in this type of thing.

If we read the text of CETA, it talks a great deal about finding compromise and mediation, and looking for solutions before getting to a court process. That is a good model to follow.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

First, I would like to thank the member for Essex, our international trade critic. In my opinion, she and her team do an extraordinary job. She exhibited great strength during today's debate. I would like to congratulate her on the work she did in committee and commend her for her dedication.

Today, I have the pleasure of speaking to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures. I am also pleased to rise to represent the people of Berthier—Maskinongé.

It is important for me to mention in the House that the NDP is in favour of international trade agreements as long as they are fair. The word “fair” is important. It is not simply a matter of engaging in free trade. We need to ensure that we are engaging in fair trade. The problem with the current government and the previous government is that they are quick to sign any agreement just so that they can brag about signing free trade agreements.

We had a fine example of this in fall 2013. During question period, the leader of the second opposition party, the current Prime Minister, congratulated the Conservative government for concluding an agreement in principle with the European Union without ever having read the agreement, which was not yet available. That is the Liberal Party in a nutshell.

Now that it is in government, not much has changed. The Liberals had several good opportunities to improve the agreement, but they chose instead to sign something that is not fair to Canadians. They were in such a hurry to see CETA come into force that they botched their own process. They are asking us, the members of the House, to give them carte blanche by voting in favour of a flawed document that will be end up being changed, especially with respect to the investor-state provisions. I think it makes no sense that hon. members are not voting on the final document.

This agreement and trade with the European Union are too important for us to take this lightly or rush through it.

A number of problems need fixing before we move forward. First, for the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, changes to intellectual property rules will cause drug prices to skyrocket. Considering our aging population and household incomes below the Canadian average, rising drug prices make me fear the worst for my fellow citizens. The government should address this before moving forward.

Second, there are a number of problems related to the agriculture and agri-food sector. I should point out that the government allowed an additional 17,700 tonnes of cheese from Europe over and above the 13,500 tonnes it already exports. In total, Europe will be allowed to export 31,200 tonnes of cheese to Canada, most of it fine cheese.

This problem provision will increase the percentage of dairy product imports from 4% to 9%, and dairy producers will lose between $116 million and $150 million. We must not forget fine cheese producers; this will cost them too. Of the additional 17,700 tonnes of cheese, 16,000 tonnes will be fine cheese. The impact of this will be felt most keenly in Quebec, which produces 60% of the country's fine cheese. Many cheese makers have said that allowing fine cheeses in will cause businesses to close.

Our manufacturing standards combined with generous subsidies for European producers make it almost impossible for our cheese makers to compete.

For a few years now, dairy and cheese producers have been investing and working hard to grow the fine cheese market. Because of this problem provision, however, their efforts will only benefit the Europeans.

Here is an example of how this agreement will affect a fine cheese producer in my riding, the Fromagerie Domaine Féodal. Last Friday I had the honour of attending a wine and cheese tasting to mark that business' 15th anniversary. The owners, Guy and Lise, just invested over $1 million to modernize their facilities, and they did so without any Canadian subsidies. I would also like to point out that they won a silver medal just last week for a cheese called Cendré des prés. I want to thank everyone who works with Guy and Lise and their family: Charles, Pierrette, Chantale, Annie, Mélanie, Justine, and Marie.

The arrival of fine cheeses from Europe will just eat into the profits they would have made on their investments. This cheese factory from the Lanaudière region will be able to absorb the blow from CETA, but that is not the case for all cheese makers in Quebec. They believe that many of the artisanal cheese factories from Quebec will close up. It is very hard for our cheese makers to compete with European cheese makers who are highly subsidized and have lower food safety standards than we do. Once again it will be our rural communities that will end up paying for this flawed trade agreement.

The government is absolving itself of the problems the agreement is causing the dairy industry with its transition plan. The government promised dairy farmers a $100-million investment fund over four years to help them modernize their operations and increase their productivity and efficiency, as well as diversify their range of products in order to capitalize on new European markets.

Clearly this program will be reserved for the largest processors and our artisanal cheese makers will be left out. The amount budgeted for the processors is far from adequate, as it does not even cover the $150-million losses the producers of fine cheeses will suffer.

The investment fund for dairy producers is even more appalling. The amount of $250 million over five years in light of annual recurring losses that could reach $150 million is not just inadequate but is an insult to dairy producers, who work very hard to make very high-quality milk.

Like artisanal cheese makers, several producers will never see this money because they have already modernized their facilities. However, above all, it simply makes no sense that our producers have to pay to access this money. How utterly deplorable of the Liberals to want to go forward with this agreement before examining its impact on the dairy industry. There is too much uncertainty for producers.

CETA will be problematic not just for the dairy sector, but also for the pork and beef industries. The previous government and the current one repeatedly boasted about the share of the European beef and pork market they gained. However, there is much to do before producers can really benefit from this market share. In fact, due to current European regulatory obstacles, none of our beef and pork producers will benefit.

I do not understand why the government is willing to move forward without resolving these issues. Stakeholders in other areas of the agriculture and agri-food sector welcome the export opportunities offered by this agreement. However, there is always a big “but” or a “maybe”. Compared to Europe and other industrialized countries, Canada provides its agriculture and agri-food sector with very few subsidies. The same goes for technical support and funding for research and innovation.

I repeat: I understand that the government wants to move forward with this agreement. However, we need to ensure that all of the programs are in place. What is more, in order to prevent unfair competition, the government needs to stand up for producers and ensure that this agreement is in the best interests of all Canadians.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier today in debate several members of the NDP referred to something that happened at the international trade committee.

I want to quote the member for Essex, who stated, “Today, the Liberal-dominated trade committee has made it clear that it only wants to hear from groups that will benefit from CETA. It has gone to extraordinary lengths to restrict its brief study of CETA from receiving input from Canadians, by passing a motion that restricts the committee from accepting written submissions except for those from the handful of witnesses who are selected to appear.”

There are a number of problems with this statement.

The first is that the committee did not meet today.

The second is that the relevant motion was put forward by the member for Essex, not by a Liberal.

Further, the member for Salaberry—Suroît commented:

In committee, the Liberals recently moved a motion in camera...

If we are discussing that, it would be a privilege issue because we would be discussing something that was discussed in camera.

Therefore, I am wondering if the member knows what on earth her colleagues are talking about on this file.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not sit on the trade committee. I am lucky to work on the agriculture committee. I would like to thank my colleague from Essex because she is working very hard on this deal, on CETA, and she has worked very hard on the TPP. We have no idea what will happen with that.

However, what is super important for us is that Canadians are consulted. I know the government says that it likes to consult, but I think it likes to consult to try to find the answer that it wants.

Right now with CETA, we have the feeling, and a lot of Canadians have the feeling, that they are not being consulted enough on this, and that if their voice or opinion is contrary to the government's position on CETA, the government does not want to hear it.

I cannot speak to what exactly happened at the trade committee because I was not there. However, I think it is important that Canadians feel included in this debate. I believe that Canadians should have a right to participate and testify at committee, and if they cannot make it to the committee, they should have the right to submit recommendations to the committee.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that I really understand the issues with respect to dairy farmers. In my riding of North Island—Powell River, we also have dairy farmers. Their concerns have been very clear. They are wondering what this next phase will look like. One of the areas that I want to talk about specifically is that in these smaller communities where the dairy farms often are, they provide jobs to the communities. They are meaningful jobs, especially in the small communities across Canada where we desperately need that employment.

Could the member share with us what the long-term impacts will be on these jobs and on the communities?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Stability is important. Dairy farmers and fine cheese producers in Quebec and across Canada are entrepreneurs. However, recent trade agreements, including the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA, and the trans-Pacific partnership, have shown that there are flaws in our supply management system that will result in major losses for our industry.

The Conservative government said that it had a plan, and now the Liberal government is telling us that it has a plan, that it has a solution, and that producers should not worry because the government is listening to them and is going to propose a solution. The Liberal government's transition support plan to mitigate the negative effects of CETA is woefully inadequate. In fact, I think it is disrespectful of the Liberal government to move forward with a $350-million plan. It is not enough.

Last week, the president of Producteurs de lait du Québec suggested increasing the transition support plan to $750 million and establishing a 15-year program, rather than a five-year program.

The Liberals have been in power for a year, and I feel they could have done better. I hope they will change tack and improve the program so that it will really help the industry because this is important for the regions. This is about protecting one of our traditional economic sectors and our jobs. We are proud of our exceptional Quebec cheese producers. We eat Quebec cheeses; we love them. We must therefore support our producers.

It is just so disappointing to see that, after a year in power, the Liberals have not even been able to deal with the problem of diafiltered milk in Canada.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I realize I have one of those lucky spots, where I get about a four-minute speech, seeing as we are getting close to 6:30 p.m.

I want to start by thanking my colleague, the member of Parliament for Essex, for the incredible work she has been doing in raising these issues.

I have been quite sorry to hear some of the condescending tones emanating from the Liberals. I would like to be there when their constituents start raising issues, asking the Liberals where they were when we talked about dairy compensation, or about the high cost of pharmaceuticals, or about the application of sovereignty, the ability of local and provincial governments to make laws for their own citizens and not have some super-national body overrule them. I would very much like to be there when their constituents ask them where they were when we were bringing up these very real concerns with this agreement.

I will unapologetically stand here and bring these concerns, as is the job of a progressive opposition, to signal that we are in favour of trade, but the agreement is so much more than just simple trade. It goes far above and beyond simple trade, and we have to bring forward these important points.

Trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. We support the deepening of Canada-EU relationships. These are member countries to which we have significant historical and cultural ties. We have received many waves of immigration from European countries, which represent some of the most progressive democracies in the world. However, this is such an important agreement that we must ensure the scope of it remains in Canada's interests.

The Liberals are essentially asking Parliament to sign-off on CETA, despite the fact that European states have made it clear that the investor-state provisions would have to be removed before they ratify it.

I want to reference how quickly the Liberal government is trying to ram this through.

On October 30, the Prime Minister signed CETA at the EU-Canada leaders' summit. Two days later Bill C-30 was put forward as the implementing legislation. This process violated the government's own policy on tabling treaties in Parliament, which requires the government to table a copy of the treaty, along with an explanatory memorandum outlining key components of the treaty, at least 21 sitting days before the legislation is presented. The Liberals also neglected to table a mandatory environmental assessment of the free trade agreement, as per a 1999 cabinet directive on environmental policy plans and program proposals.

Seeing that my time is short, tomorrow I will continue my speech and go over some of the costs to our drug provisions, as the seniors critic, and some of the investor-state provisions. I look forward to continuing that conversation tomorrow.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have seven minutes left for his speech when this matter is before the House again.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford brought up an interesting point in mentioning the splitting of his time. The clocks have wound up more and more out of sync in the chamber. I wonder if the Chair could undertake to have the clocks brought back to the real world time. It is now more than two minutes out.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure that the clerks will look into the issue.

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

Canada Revenue Agency

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure and honour to address the House.

I would like to resurrect a question that I asked in the House on September 22, 2016. Two months ago, during question period, I asked the Minister of National Revenue a question relating to the latest information leak in the news. In September, everyone heard about the Bahamas leaks, which surfaced shortly after the Panama Papers, though the latter are more familiar to Canadians. The information in both was very similar.

Between 1990 and 2016, 175,000 companies were registered in the Bahamas. The information was obtained by a German daily paper, Süddeutsche Zeitung, and was then handed over to a consortium of journalists including some from the CBC and the Toronto Star. Three Canadian banks were named in the leaks: RBC, CIBC, and Scotiabank.

This leak of information occurred after the Panama papers, which really alerted the world to the important and growing phenomenon of tax evasion. As everyone knows, globalization and the introduction of technology have increasingly led businesses to use tax evasion schemes. Businesses organize their tax matters with an eye on paying as little in taxes as possible. This is a global trend and Canada is no exception. For that reason, Canada must do more, and it must show leadership in fighting tax evasion. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing with this government. There was praise for a few additional investments. However, at the international level, the fight must be fierce, concerted, and led by leaders who care about this. Unfortunately, at this time, Canada is not doing nearly enough on this issue in comparison with other countries.

I therefore asked the minister for the government's response to that new information leak, especially regarding the fact that Canada has a tax information exchange agreement with the Bahamas. That agreement, signed by both countries, allows them to exchange tax information. Despite that, and despite other agreements with other countries, tax evasion continues. Tax evasion in the Bahamas was revealed thanks to that information leak. Despite those agreements, journalists are the ones keeping us informed. Information leaks enable the government to handle these things, conduct investigations, and carry out audits.

I have some basic questions for the parliamentary secretary. Has the government obtained the information that was in the information leak from the Bahamas? How did it get that information and through what source? Was it from a network of journalists, from a government, or from some other source? What did Canada do with the information it has from the Bahamas leaks? What is it doing right now regarding all the files on Canadians involved in this information leak? What happened to the files of Canadian taxpayers involved in this information leak? Can we expect a verdict, prosecutions, and convictions for taxpayers who tried to cheat our tax system?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon in response to my colleague from Sherbrooke, who is giving me the opportunity to tell him everything that the Canada Revenue Agency is doing to combat tax evasion and offshore tax avoidance.

The government is committed to maintaining a tax system that is open and fair for all Canadians. The CRA has a plan for enhancing its compliance activities through an unprecedented investment of $444 million announced in April 2016. This additional funding over five years will be used to equip CRA with more resources and tools to crack down on cheats and encourage compliance. Some of this additional funding will allow the agency to hire more tax experts to uncover more cases of tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Let us now move on to other measures. The CRA is setting up new teams to conduct audits of multinational corporations, wealthy, high-risk individuals and associated entities. These new teams will be made up of auditors, lawyers, economists, and experts, which will make the agency even better equipped to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Since January 2015, the CRA has been collecting information on all international money transfers of over $10,000, including those from Panama, and it has selected the highest-risk individuals for review or audit.

The CRA is currently examining over 2,671 cases related to the Panama Papers and has identified 85 high-risk taxpayers so far who will be subject to a more thorough audit.

I will continue by describing some of the other measures that have been taken by the Canada Revenue Agency, which recently secured a court order requiring a bank to provide it with more information.

Multiple criminal investigations are underway, and search warrants were recently executed. The CRA will also deal with the information on the Bahamas that was recently presented by the journalist consortium. With regard to international tax evasion and avoidance, the CRA has a four-point plan to deal with non-compliance, which includes better access to information, greater focus on non-compliance abroad, additional resources to strengthen our capacity, and international co-operation.

With regard to international co-operation, the CRA has a number of tools at its disposal that allow it to stand in the way of anyone who is using or wants to use tax evasion or avoidance schemes abroad.