House of Commons Hansard #113 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was prices.

Topics

The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the member for Montarville.

The fight against tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance is one of this government's priorities. As we have said from the start, the tax system must be fair, and everyone must pay their fair share of taxes.

With that in mind, I have read the motion tabled by the hon. member with great interest. Unfortunately, it has some flaws, and other initiatives that are already under way would be more effective.

I note that the motion proposes to “review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals...to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside”. It is not quite right to say that corporations currently pay tax based only on where they reside. Current rules also pay attention to where they have their physical operations. However, I think we can all agree that companies, including digital corporations, need to pay their fair share of tax on the money they earn from their activities in Canada, even if remotely controlled. In this area, the government has made clear that it would prefer a multilateral solution.

For that reason, Canada is actively working with our international partners to achieve a global agreement. Progress was made at the recent G7 finance ministers meeting in London. Multinationals need to pay their fair share of taxes, and the G7 has outlined a path to make that possible. We are encouraged by the progress being made at the G7 and the OECD. However, it is important to recognize that a global agreement would take time to be enacted and ratified. Therefore, our government plans to move ahead in the interim.

I encourage all members to take a close look at budget 2021, which proposes to implement a digital services tax at a rate of 3% on revenue from digital services that rely on data and content contributions from Canadian users. The tax would apply to large businesses with gross revenue of 750 million euros or more. It would apply as of January 1, 2022, until an acceptable multilateral approach comes into effect.

In addition, the budget confirms the government's intention to proceed with changes announced in the fall economic statement 2020 pertaining to e-commerce. These measures will ensure that the GST and HST apply to all goods and services consumed in Canada regardless of how they are supplied or who supplies them.

Bill C-30, currently before the House, would implement these changes and ensure that the Canadian sales tax system is fair. Foreign digital corporations supplying digital products or services to consumers in Canada would be required to collect and remit GST/HST. I hope we can count on the member's support to approve Bill C-30.

Motion No. 69 also calls on the government to work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies as a way to more effectively combat tax evasion. Again, I agree with the member opposite that it is necessary to strengthen corporate beneficial ownership transparency. The government is committed to continuing to take action in that regard. Specifically, budget 2021 announced the government's intention to create a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. Authorities need to know who owns which companies in Canada to be able to catch those who attempt to launder money, evade taxes or commit other complex financial crimes.

That said, in Canada, responsibility for corporate law is shared between federal, provincial and territorial governments. Only a small portion of Canadian companies are federally incorporated. Most are registered at the provincial or territorial level. Governments should prioritize these national efforts before working to establish a global registry.

That said, what concerns me most about the motion is that in certain cases, the proposed measures could have negative consequences. Take, for example, the proposal to change the rules concerning income that Canadian corporations repatriate from some of their international subsidiaries.

The motion, it appears, seeks to change the tax rules for what is called “exempt surplus”, the earnings of a foreign subsidiary of a Canadian company from carrying on an active business in a foreign country. These active business earnings can be repatriated to the Canadian company as dividends, free of Canadian income tax, where the foreign subsidiary is resident and carries on business in a country with which Canada has a tax treaty or a tax information exchange agreement.

The proposal would be a major change to Canada's international tax policy. It would not be well targeted and could have negative consequences.

First, the proposal would put Canada out of step with international norms. Canada's tax rules in this regard are consistent with those of most other developed countries.

Second, it could hurt Canadian companies that are foreign subsidiaries operating in a country with which Canada has a tax treaty or a tax information exchange agreement. The current rules ensure that a subsidiary carrying on an active business in one of these countries is subject to similar tax rates as other corporations operating in the same country and therefore competes on an equal footing. Canada has tax treaties and tax information exchange agreements with several countries, including some that have low tax rates. If we change the rules here, we could adversely affect the competitiveness of Canadian businesses operating abroad by increasing their overall tax burden.

Third, at the end of the day, the proposed change may not generate significant revenues, if any at all, for Canada. In some cases, it could simply encourage Canadian companies to keep their foreign profits offshore, and in other cases it could cause them to pay more taxes, but to other countries, not to Canada.

The hon. member would also like to review the concept of permanent establishment, so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada. The goal is laudable, but the motion would not help to achieve it.

For one, the concept of permanent establishment generally has no application in relation to Canadian taxpayers shifting income into foreign shell companies. Rather, it applies in the context of foreign companies operating in Canada. Modifying the concept of permanent establishment would therefore not have the intended effect of taxing in Canada income shifted by Canadian taxpayers into foreign shell companies. Two, this concept cannot be modified unilaterally because the concept is defined in Canada's bilateral tax treaties.

To sum up, Motion No. 69 has the noble objective of fighting tax avoidance and tax evasion. Unfortunately, some parts of it are not properly targeted, which could have a number of negative consequences.

I invite the members of the House to reject the motion. The goals the hon. member is trying to set would be better addressed by other initiatives, including budget 2021 and Bill C-30.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Speaker, it is a true privilege to rise in the House today to speak to Motion No. 69. I am looking forward to talking about it today. I would like to start my speech with a quote that I believe is very relevant to the topic at hand. As part of the 2007 budget—

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am sorry, but there is a point of order. I think I know what it is, because I believe there is an issue with the hon. member's mike.

The hon. member for Repentigny.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, that is exactly why I am rising.

The interpreter is completely unable to do her job because there is a problem with the member's microphone.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I just asked him to check that.

I want to make sure the hon. member has picked the right mike.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to this important issue and to this motion.

This is part of a larger discussion that needs to happen, and I am very pleased to be talking about it today.

I would like to begin by quoting the great Jim Flaherty when he talked about the 2007 budget and had just recently announced an anti-tax-haven initiative. His words still ring very true today. He said:

When multinational corporations use this tax loophole, Canadian taxpayers are indirectly subsidizing their international operations. Our goal is to improve the fairness of our tax system and further reduce taxes for hard-working Canadians while preserving Canada's overall tax advantage for our globally successful companies.

There can be no doubt that taxation can be a challenging and difficult time when it comes to paying those taxes, but those taxes are often required. They are required for things such as making sure that we have street lights and paved roads, making sure that our firefighters are well paid and making sure that we continue to have the best education and health care systems in the world. It is critical that we have those.

As the Hon. Jim Flaherty said, when a certain portion of our tax population fails to pay its fair share, it is the rest of us who carry the burden. It is the folks on Main Street who have to subsidize Bay Street, and we do not believe that is right.

What is the size and scope of the issue that we are talking about today? Well, it is hard to put an exact figure on it, because we do not know exactly how much tax is being evaded, but there are estimates out there of anywhere between $5 billion and $10 billion, and even $15 billion. That is a lot of hospitals that could be built and a lot of schools that could be constructed. We need to focus on that, and as I said, when even a small portion of Canadians do not pay their appropriate fair share, that increases the burden for the rest of the taxpayers.

Beyond taxation, often tax havens are utilized not only to avoid paying federal corporate tax or federal individual tax but also to avoid financial regulations and financial liabilities. Some tax schemes have even been used to avoid alimony and support for children, which is obviously not okay in our great country. They have also allowed corporations to shelter income and potentially criminal behaviour. All of this represents an unfair advantage for a small portion of the ultra-wealthy here in Canada.

I will now focus on the actual motion and address some of the concerns that the previous hon. member had in her speech, which was obviously well researched and well thought out, but I think it contained a number of deficiencies. Perhaps I will be able to alleviate her concerns, and maybe we will get members from the other side voting for this motion.

I will go clause by clause for those in the House or at home who have the motion and are ready to read it.

I will start with subclause (a), which is:

amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;

While we fully acknowledge that many of these agreements are done through a tax treaty and through international tax negotiation, that does not mean that we cannot have change. In fact, there appears to be a will throughout the world to have change to make sure that people across this world are paying their fair share of taxation. The ultra-wealthy, or a certain portion or them, do not pay it.

I will describe what is going on here for everyone at home who maybe does not eat and sleep tax law.

Generally, a Canadian corporation can set up another corporation in another territory. This is not bad news but great news, because we are bringing more Canada to the world, and I think it is a fantastic thing for successful corporations. We would never want to discourage that. However, unfortunately, there can be a tax disadvantage for the treasury. What happens is that these corporations pay tax on money in these foreign jurisdictions, and then they can repatriate it back to Canada, even to wealthy shareholders, and those wealthy shareholders may not necessarily be paying their full amount of tax.

What is more, there is planning that can be done so that the reality of the income is not really even generated in that foreign company but is just used as a way to avoid taxes. There can be and should be work done.

Do we want to make sure, as the hon. member said, that Canadian businesses are competitive wherever they are? Absolutely, but there is a way to do that. There is a way to make sure that Canadians pay their fair share while Canadian businesses remain competitive. It should be noted that this is not a novel concept. Many countries in the world do such things, including the United States. It does not allow the type of planning that allows the ultrawealthy to avoid taxation.

If we look at (d) in the motion, it states, “review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside”.

As we look at taxation, a lot of the concepts date back 50 or 100 years. They are very geography-centric. We know that the world is increasingly moving away from being geographically centred. Capital, digital items and all sorts of intellectual property move in seconds from country to country, so we need to revisit this.

When we look at this, the language is “review”. It is not compelling the government to a specific action. It is saying that we need to review it. I think that is absolutely right because, as is the case with a lot of this motion, we need to have multinational treaties changed, which involves collaboration around the world, and I am in favour of that. However, it does not mean that we should not review this.

The world has changed so dramatically. We need to keep up with the speed of business and the speed of innovation. Quite frankly, the Canadian government and the Canadian taxation regime are not doing that. On the same point, we need to maintain Canadian sovereignty and protect the information of legitimate Canadian businesses.

Part (b) of the motion is to “review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada”.

This gets back to the geocentric version of taxation that made lots of sense in the early 1900s and even in the 1950s. We need to be open to new perspectives. Just because there is a physical location or even an operation in a particular country does not mean necessarily that is where the taxation should occur.

Again, this is a review of the concept. It is not commanding the government to do anything. However, to say we do not need to look at this I think is silly, because the world is changing and the tax code needs to reflect that. We need to look away from the geographic or geocentric view and look at where that income is being generated and where, fairly and rightfully, the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canadian taxpayers have rights. If millions or billions of dollars are being generated in Canada, I think there is an argument to at least have a discussion with respect to reviewing this principle, regardless of where the company operates.

The idea of a permanent establishment has been gamed by tax professionals for years by using trusts. Trusts can have the controlling mind located in a different country, but the remainder of the business operates outside of that tax haven. I think this is an excellent idea and I look forward to a robust discussion on that going forward.

If we look at part (e), it states to “work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion”.

Let us take a step back. I think actual beneficial ownership versus legal ownership is not a really well-known concept among Canadians. Beneficial ownership is the right to benefit from it, and legal ownership is having the title to it.

I see we are getting to the end, Madam Speaker.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I apologize, but the hon. member has run out of time. I tried to give him a couple of signals and I did allow for a bit more time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor West.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Motion No. 69 in the House of Commons. This is the first chance I have had to rise since the horrific actions in London, Ontario, which is about a two-hour drive from Windsor. I want to express my community's support for the people of London, in particular, the family of Salman Afzaal and, of course, nine-year-old Fayez, who is still in hospital. We extend our condolences. This horrific event will hopefully unite many Canadians against hatred. I thank all those expressing their concern at this point in time. We have many family friends and business acquaintances in London who are close to those individuals in that community, and our hearts go out to them.

I am pleased to rise in support of this motion. It should be no surprise that New Democrats have long supported tax fairness. This motion is very appropriate now, given that a lot of winners have been created through government interactions, restrictions and changes to deal with COVID. At the same time, we are facing some historic challenges with tax havens and tax allowances for the elite, who have been allowed to escape paying for some of the things that we all pay for as citizens. Corporations, individuals and businesses have been allowed to use havens in other parts of the world to avoid paying for necessities like education, health care and the environment.

One of the things I am most proud of is my work on a motion that later became legislation. It is something I worked on ages ago with Ralph Goodale, who was the minister at the time. At one point, corporate fines and penalties were tax deductible. People could declare fines and penalties against environmental degradation, criminal activity and other things of that nature and get 50% back at tax time. We were able to negotiate having the government move away from that practice, because it undermined good corporations that were doing the right thing. Some corporations are allowing this type of behaviour to undermine their competition, good practices and those that are being responsible.

The motion has six main components that are very important in this respect. Why the government would be opposed to this is hard to understand, as the motion gives further strength in the chamber to debate, but it also addresses some of the greed and corruption out there. We have seen the challenge most recently of public money given to Air Canada being used for CEO bonuses. It is an accepted practice by the government to allow that to take place. We have also seen it with Nav Canada. My community fought to stop Nav Canada shutting down smaller airport towers. At the same time as it was laying off workers, it was giving managers bonus money. When it got a government package, it gave out more bonus money. Now there is pressure to return it to the public, but it could at least go to the workers.

The motion and the member's discussion points also bring up the unfairness in the international realm. It is important to note that the Panama papers, which are several years old now, identified a list of Canadians who were participating in a tax scheme that most of us could only dream of in many respects. It allowed people, in an organized way, to avoid paying their fair share. I do not understand as a citizen, and many in the working class do not understand, how people can get a break in the tax system the Liberal and Conservative governments have had in place for so many years if they have an accountant, a lawyer or that privileged ability to defer expenses and a whole series of things either through tax credits, manipulation of the tax system or, in this case, putting their money offshore.

We have heard stories about the Isle of Man, Jamaica, Nassau and other places that we lose all kinds of money to. Since the pandemic began, Canadian billionaire wealth increased by about $78 billion while thousands of workers were worried about losing their jobs.

This is atrocious when we consider that many of those people who are actually benefiting from that are also part of the companies that have actually made money during the pandemic. As I mentioned, they are also avoiding paying taxes.

One of the classic cases is Bell Canada. It supplies our Internet, through subscriptions and online services, and we know it had access to government assistance while, at the same time, making record profits and doing a number of different things.

I do not know specifically if it is using tax evasion or havens, and at the moment I will not cast that mantle upon it. However, the reality is the company took advantage of government programs during a time when it was making significant profits.

There was a CRA decision that came out just recently concerning Loblaws. The Canada Revenue Agency lost a decision based upon the laws in our country, which we currently have right now. It lost not based on fairness, but based upon our current laws, which are as shady as the practice themselves because they have known loopholes and are worse than a bad goaltender in hockey. The laws are essentially a sieve when it comes to allowing people and corporations to shift money out of our country. There was a loss of $368 million in taxes from what Loblaws moved.

Here is a retail element that has actually done significantly well, and with the pandemic on top of it. Also, to be quite frank, at times its practice with regard to employing workers during the pandemic has not always been the fairest, in my opinion. In fact, when we look at all of our grocery retailers, many of them have not been providing what I deem a fair wage.

I come from a background of employment specialists, where I assisted persons with disabilities and young people find employment in the community. Working in a grocery store is one of the most challenging positions, not only because of the types of work that they do, but also because of the types of the shifts they get, the precariousness of the job, and so forth.

Men and women have been going into these establishments and providing all these services during some of the scariest moments of COVID-19. Meanwhile, some of these employers are using tax havens to avoid paying for the support programs necessary for all of us to get by. I would argue that sometimes this becomes an uncompetitive practice, when it comes to other employers who are willing to do the right thing and not use tax havens.

I want to talk about one of the things that I think is very important, an area where Canada could be a leader. What I like about the motion is that it talks about a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion. That is really important.

It is interesting. I have been here long enough to remember when Liberal Stéphane Dion said that we could not cut corporate taxes fast enough, hard enough and deep enough. At the same time, we saw meetings of the finance ministers where they actually talked about a global tax rate. What we have is companies playing countries off each other, one by one, to try to lower corporate taxes.

Finally, there is some recognition. We are a far cry from the Paul Martin days of the Liberals and others, when they would not even look at an idea like this. They would openly mock it. They would be in a competition with the United States to lower corporate taxes because the cuts were not fast enough or deep enough, according to their former leader.

This is now being talked about because we have international web giants, and other types of online services and corporations, that no longer have a physical footprint, necessarily, in a country, but they do economic activity that generates billions of dollars while not paying any type of supports.

Essentially, this motion is an important part of the discussion in the House of Commons and one that New Democrats are really proud to support. We know there is around $25 billion in corporate revenue that should be coming to Canada, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is estimated that those funds could actually be used for health care, education, small business or the environment. Quite frankly, the time should come when corporations cannot use tax havens as an advantage or a leg-up versus the real innovators in our economy that actually need to be rewarded because they are doing the right thing.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, it is a little ironic to be having a debate about tax havens right after talking about the housing shortage and how hard it is to get money for things like social housing. However, I will jump right in.

As Radio-Canada's Gérald Fillion said, when it comes to tax havens, Canada is part of the problem, not the solution.

Solutions do exist, however. My colleagues have been talking about solutions in the House all this time. Canada has been favouring tax havens for so long that we could even call it the founding father of tax evasion and tax avoidance, since it is so heavily involved with the worst offenders, like the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands.

I would also like to salute my colleague, the member for Montarville, for introducing this motion. We must not give up the never-ending fight against tax havens. I commend his initiative, because the Liberal government does not really intend to commit to tax fairness, as we can clearly see from its stand against this motion.

However, it is important to be able to clearly identify who in the financial world is pulling businesses' strings and encouraging tax evasion and tax avoidance. We must be able to identify the various elements that help companies mask their actual financial situation and use tax havens to achieve their ambitions: far-flung destinations, luxury hotels and upscale restaurants, or any other clandestine place in a paradise on earth, far from the eyes of the business world, stepping through the portals of a secret world of mysterious transactions and artificial and immoral pleasures, such as drugs or sexual exploitation. Members should read the works of the essayist Alain Deneault to better understand the relationship between tax havens and the sordid underbelly of humanity.

Some may say that I may be exaggerating and that the business people who use tax havens are not such seedy characters. Some are principled and honourable, but they see no alternative to using tax havens, simply to avoid getting steamrollered by their strongest adversaries.

That is a list, one that is far too long, of what makes tax havens so effective. There are certain forces that shape the world that our children will inherit, but is that what we really want?

Maybe we ought to think about that. Are the successive Canadian governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, aware of what is hiding behind the tax haven curtain and the devastating impact tax havens can have on democracies?

In their defence, it is true that, when it comes to tax evasion and tax avoidance, there is sometimes a fine line between what is legal and what is illegal. However, the fact remains that the mores that characterize tax havens are highly questionable. There are plenty of tax havens, and they all reek of immorality. Organized crime, the big cartels, the mafia and unscrupulous business people: Regardless of how we describe these users, we must not be afraid to say that there are human realities behind tax evasion and tax avoidance. More importantly, we must not give up the fight, because tax havens have a bigger impact on our daily lives than we realize.

People develop strategies. People with technological tools and an advanced understanding of the laws and regulations develop tax strategies and tricks that become increasingly sophisticated. Understanding the intricacies of tax havens has become a high-level art that gives the infamous 1% a distinct advantage over those who do the right thing and abide by a fair tax system that is good for society as a whole.

Unfortunately, we must take action and continue to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance because the number of business people using tax havens grows with every passing fiscal year.

Statistics Canada tells us that Canadian businesses invested $381 billion in the top 12 tax havens in 2019. That adds up to almost one-third of Canada's foreign investment. I received a document in the mail about how, given the pandemic, we need those tax haven billions now more than ever. The document names these countries: Luxembourg, Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, the Netherlands, the Bahamas, Switzerland, Hong Kong, the Virgin Islands, Ireland, Singapore and Malta.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is calling on Ottawa to crack down on businesses that hide their profits in tax havens.

To do that, it will need to require Canadian banks to disclose how much money they are putting in their foreign subsidiaries, establish a global registry that identifies the actual owner of a company in order to lift the veil on shell companies, contribute to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's global efforts to eradicate tax havens, and ensure that income that individuals and businesses repatriate from a tax haven is taxed in Canada. That was an interesting document that I got in the mail.

The absence of this $381 billion from the coffers of Quebec, the other provinces, the territories and Canada has major consequences for the quality of our social services and the development of our institutions, for our businesses and infrastructure, for our education system and health care system, for seniors and so on.

Surely such a huge shortfall is the root of all our problems, given the consequences for economic prosperity. There is an obvious, not to say troubling, link between shifting tax revenues and the decline in economic prosperity.

How much of the missing $381 billion could be invested in the economy every year by the Quebec and Canadian governments? How much of those billions of dollars could help the local and national economies? How much of those billions of dollars is not being used every year to train and attract workers? How much of those billions of dollars is not being used to modernize our economy? How much of those billions of dollars is not being pumped into colleges and universities to fund research and development?

All this missing money is not being used to reverse the trends of globalization and the offshoring of Quebec and Canadian manufacturing. How much of the missing $381 billion could be used to revitalize the domestic Quebec and Canadian markets so products could be sourced and manufactured locally?

How many immeasurable resources are we leaving in tax havens? We could revitalize a truly national economy that is much closer to the workers and producers. This would help us be more environmentally conscious and more supportive of secondary and tertiary processing. This would ensure a much more innovative and creative economy than the current globalized model, which is inseparable from tax evasion and tax avoidance.

We need to join forces and work together to recover that inaccessible money from tax havens. The metrics of success for a company, an industry or a nation like Quebec would change, since the money recovered from tax evasion and avoidance would be invested for the benefit of local and national companies. There would be more for us, the people, than for them, the wheelers-and?-dealers club.

Every transaction through a tax haven comes at a cost to small business owners in Quebec and Canada, who are struggling to carve out a place in a global economy that artificially benefits international empires.

These small businesses do not have a fair chance at success. Small business owners are fighting hard and being resourceful and creative, while international empires are relying on the financial clout that comes from not paying taxes. This disparity is weakening our democracies.

Furthermore, tax evasion and avoidance are inevitably and gradually weakening democracy in Quebec and Canada. The empires are so powerful that they are neutralizing democracies, which are scrambling to recover so they can stop finance industry crooks from hiding their activities under the cover of laws allowing tax evasion and avoidance.

Do we really want democracies that have been neutralized by powers that do not pay taxes in Quebec and Canada? No, we do not, at least not in Quebec. Once again, Quebec is a leader on this very important issue. Canada has a dismal record and is even seen as an accomplice in the world of tax havens, which showcases the worst traits in human nature: exploitation, lying, selfishness, cheating and more.

In closing, I want to condemn Ottawa's complacency. The federal government is being complacent in the face of fraud and excessive use of tax havens. Parliament is allocating ever-increasing amounts of money to help the Canada Revenue Agency tackle the problem, but nothing is being done and the results are not there. In 2018, the Minister of National Revenue boasted in the House that the CRA had recovered $15 billion as a result of international tax investigations, but the CRA's report indicated that the amount was actually 600 times lower, a meagre $25 million.

More recently, we learned that five years after the leak of the Panama papers, the CRA has laid no charges and has only recovered $21 million in unpaid taxes.

Meanwhile, Revenu Québec has recovered $21 million in addition to the $12 million that has been assessed but not yet repaid. That means Revenu Québec has recovered provincial taxes equivalent to half of what the CRA has recovered for all the provinces.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Montarville has five minutes for his right of reply.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue firmly established what the problem is from the outset.

Today, we are talking about housing and the fact that the resources available to respond to needs in that area are insufficient. That is true for health, social services and all other state obligations.

In reality, we have enough money, but that money is slipping through our fingers. It is growing in tax havens to the benefit of the wealthy. Who is paying for that? It is low-income earners and the middle class who are footing the bill for the wealthiest members of our society. That is completely unacceptable. I do not understand how our Liberal colleagues can tolerate such a thing.

I would like to pay tribute to our colleagues from the Conservative Party, the NDP and, of course, the Bloc Québécois. They raised many concerns with regard to my motion. Nothing is perfect in this world, and I am well aware of the fact that there may be some problems with my motion. However, they chose not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They chose to keep what was good about the motion and build on it. We need to take action. We cannot make excuses for not taking action. However, that is exactly what the Liberals are doing. They are saying that the few small problems, alleged problems, with the motion are reason to dismiss it, to reject the whole thing.

There is a saying in Quebec that when a person wants to have a dog put down, they say it has rabies. That is exactly what is happening here. They are pointing out a few small issues in the motion to justify rejecting it altogether.

If the motion's objective is commendable, why not build on it? Why not work together to come up with real solutions to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance?

As we know, G7 finance ministers have agreed on a similar objective. Why are the members of this House not able to agree on such an objective? It boggles the mind.

The Liberals claim to be the champions of the middle class, but the reality is quite different. Since the Jean Chrétien government was in power, more than 20 tax agreements have been reached with tax havens, including at least three since the current Prime Minister took office.

The government claims it is combatting tax havens, but there are more of them. The government is normalizing the use of tax havens. That is completely unacceptable.

My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said that the main Canadian corporations have reportedly stashed $381 billion in foreign countries. The Parliamentary Budget Officer concluded that this $381 billion, which is a mind-boggling amount, was not primarily for investment purposes. My colleague pointed out that this represents one-third of Canadian investments abroad. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us that this money was not investments, rather, the corporations were using these tactics to avoid paying their fair share for state obligations and services. That is completely unacceptable.

I also find it unacceptable that the Liberal government is digging in and saying that it will be business as usual. Throughout this entire debate, the Liberal members have been bringing up the budget. They have been telling us to trust in the budget, that it will work and that they will continue what they have been doing so far. The problem is, things are not working. We need to take the bull by the horns and take real action to meaningfully combat tax evasion and avoidance, in the name of tax fairness.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The question is on the motion. May I dispense?

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Montarville.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

Fight Against Tax EvasionPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 9, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Madam Speaker, it is great to be in the House, as always.

I want to talk about doctors in Canada. I have a tremendous doctor in my constituency. He is my personal doctor, Dr. Van de Linde, who has been recognized for his commitment to the community. In the past, I was involved in a regional health board and met a lot of doctors in my area and community. They are fantastic people.

My doctor has given me some information that I think is really important at this time. I understand that health is part of the provincial mandate. I understand colleges of physicians and the role they play in every province as far as recognizing credentials for doctors goes. However, here is some information that my doctor shared with me: According to a survey of the Canadian Medical Association, 91% of physicians supported national licensure and believed that it would improve care for patients; 45% of physicians reported that if national licensure existed, they would work in other provinces to support their colleagues in times of need, as with COVID; 42% were willing to go to rural areas and remote regions; and 30% would do it again on an ongoing basis.

As we have seen in this particular time, this kind of move would be extremely interesting to pursue. I understand colleges of physicians and I understand the provincial mandate with health. However, we have a tremendous number of people with skills and licensing who have the mobility to move quickly from province to province. If we have an ice storm in Quebec, there are all sorts of tradespeople who can move from one province to another and to an area. We have significant professions that can move from province to province very quickly. However, for a doctor to do it, to be recertified in a different province, they are going back and looking for high school marks. At times it takes months to move from province to province. I think this is significant and we should be looking at it, especially as we come out of COVID. Doctors know it would mean better health care, and we need to follow their advice.

There is a different health topic that I would like to bring up: hotel quarantines. I think this was a boondoggle from the start. I have heard stories from constituents who had to pile furniture up in doorways of hotels because the locks had been removed. We have heard stories of people being loaded in vans with a whole lot of other people sitting side by side, and going to hotel lobbies crowded with people who are supposed to be in hotel quarantine. Some of those people in the hotel are in regular rooms.

An advisory committee suggested approximately 10 days ago that the hotel quarantine needed to be scrapped because rules are not being enforced in two of the four areas. It should be scrapped. It was not an idea that worked to begin with. It does not work. As the committee said, people are better off to quarantine at their homes if they are going to. It also said that if people are vaccinated somewhere else and are coming into Canada, quarantine should not be enforced either.

We have an advisory committee for the government that said we should change this and get rid of it. What did the government do? It increased the fines, which are only enforced in two out of the four provinces. Hotel quarantines should be gone.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Pickering—Uxbridge Ontario

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak about these important issues. When it comes to the member's first comments around doctors in this country, that is an area that we have absolutely been working with our provincial counterparts on, whether in things such as virtual care or, as the member mentioned, the ability for practitioners to move. As he stated, this is provincial jurisdiction; however, we are constantly talking to provincial and territorial counterparts about ways that we can improve health care for Canadians across the country and that is something we are going to continue to do.

In terms of government-authorized quarantine facilities, the member said the measures do not work. That is simply not the case. The measures that have been put in place at the border have been taken because they add layers of protection for Canadians travelling. This is a measure that has been important not only to track, trace and stop the spread of COVID-19, but it is also in place to ensure that we are watching for variants of concern.

I find it incredibly difficult to take the Conservative member seriously when on social media we see the Leader of the Opposition screaming for stronger border measures, then in the House when they think Canadians are not watching, the Conservatives say, “Scrap all these measures and just open up the borders.” The Conservatives need to get consistent with the message when it comes to protecting Canadians. From our side, we have put in place measures that are led by science and evidence to keep Canadians safe. These measures are important, and again are done completely with the objectives of stopping the spread of COVID-19 and saving lives.

The member also stated incorrectly that the quarantining is not even enforced in two of the four jurisdictions. That is simply not the case. In Quebec it is being enforced through the judicial process, and Alberta has the ability to enforce these measures. The local jurisdiction has not yet enacted the Quarantine Act or the regulations to do this enforcement. However, we are still able to enforce these measures.

It is important that all local public health measures are enforced because they are done with the goal of protecting Canadians and stopping the spread of the virus. We are all very much looking forward to a life after COVID, and the fastest way we are going to get there is if Canadians continue to step up. Over 30 million vaccine doses have been delivered, and by Canadians stepping up and getting vaccinated we are going to see our way out of this pandemic.

In the meantime, these measures are incredibly important. Again, we are constantly watching so that we are able to track and trace and stop the spread of COVID and the variants of concern. Our objective to keep Canadians safe will not stop.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Madam Speaker, I think I talked about hotel quarantines. I did not mention the border once, which the parliamentary secretary focused on. I thank her for recognizing Alberta: For months and months, now approaching five, they have not enforced it. I thank her for recognizing that. I appreciate that.

Let us move to one other health topic. I have talked to optometrists. They are extremely concerned about what is going to happen as we have had children like my granddaughter averaging 19 hours a day in front of blue light from screens. We are going to see such repercussions for eyes. One might say that is health, that is Alberta again, but indigenous and Armed Forces are under federal jurisdiction. We need to look after eye care, and that is something we should be doing coming out of COVID because we are facing a tragedy. It is going to be brutal. We need to look at this federally.

HealthAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Madam Speaker, off the top, I do not know why the member opposite would find it to be a point of pride to not enforce quarantine measures. Local quarantine measures are in place for the purpose of actually protecting communities, so I find it odd that he finds it to be a point of pride to not enforce local public health measures. That is between him and his constituents.

When it comes to optometrists, absolutely we have heard from stakeholders. We are listening and taking those comments very seriously. Again, as I mentioned, we are going to continue to work with our provincial and territorial counterparts and ensure that Canadians have access to the health care they need.

Veterans AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I asked a question several days ago on the Liberals' broken promise to eliminate the marriage after 60 clause. Veterans and RCMP retirees are reaching out to me because this issue is still not fixed.

Just so Canadians understand, this clause was created in the early 1900s and it prevents the spouses of veterans and RCMP retirees, as well as any federal public servant, from receiving a pension after the death of their partner if they marry after 60. This clause is a relic that should belong in a sexist history. It is still known under the name of “the gold-digger clause”, as it was created to prevent young women from marrying older veterans to get their pension when they died.

It is still in place today. How is that for a feminist government? It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

What we know is that veterans' spouses in this category are often in poverty. In fact, some veterans stop taking part of their pension while they are living so their spouses will have something when they die, which can mean veterans and their spouses live in poverty for years so that if the spouses live longer they are not completely without an income.

Fundamentally, the federal government is punishing veterans for marrying after 60. This is sexist, as well as ageist. I know of one couple, for example, who were going to get married. COVID prevented the wedding from happening, and then the veteran turned 60. Now what do they do?

The government's plan is to study this, study this very small population of largely impoverished women so the government can find them. I appreciate the importance of studies. However, this small population is in desperate need. Veterans are worried about the future of their partners.

In the 2015 and 2017 mandate letters to the ministers of Veterans Affairs, the PM was very clear and instructed the ministers to eliminate the marriage after 60 pension clawback. Sadly, this mandate was not found in the most recent 2019 or 2020 mandate letters.

The Liberals promised to eliminate the clause in the 2019 campaign, but instead created the veterans survivors fund in the 2019 budget, with $150 million over five years. This funding was panned to many organizations, including the National Council of Veteran Associations, the Armed Forces Pensioners' Association, and the RCMP Veterans' Association. To date, not one penny of the fund has been spent.

It is very clear that this issue for a relatively small population is just not a priority for the government. The government could eliminate this clause, have an application process for the spouses, and this issue would be resolved. Instead, the spouses of retired RCMP officers and veterans who married after 60 continue to remain poor.

When will the government fix this? How long will it take? VAC has funded two studies on this issue. The first is through the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research and was completed recently by UBC professor Dr. Eric Li. In his executive summary, he states that he was able to include only seven survivors and three veterans in his study. Even with that small sample size, the primary recommendation is that VAC reconsider the criteria for inheriting a veteran's pension.

The second study is through Statistics Canada, which sent its preliminary results to VAC one month ago. The results were supposed to be made public by summer 2020, but now we are being told to wait until 2022.

Was the government expecting these studies to produce a result other than the need to eliminate the marriage after 60 clause? Everyone, and I mean everyone, who is affected by this clause has called for the government simply to eliminate it. Even the Prime Minister wanted it to happen, so why the delay?

Veterans AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook Nova Scotia

Liberal

Darrell Samson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the MP for North Island—Powell River, for her excellent work on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, on which I serve as well.

I am pleased to present the government's response today. Let me note that the well-being of Canadian veterans and their families is a top priority for our government. This includes ensuring that veterans' partners continue to receive support after the death of their spouse.

It has been a long-standing concern that those who marry veterans after the veteran has turned 60 are not entitled to automatic survivor pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. This is why, in 2019, our government announced $150 million over five years to establish a veterans survivors fund designated to “better support veterans who married over the age of 60 and their spouses”. At the time of the announcement, no information was available on the population who married a veteran after the veteran's 60th birthday. The first phase of that funding commitment requires some research into the size, characteristics and needs of this population.

As a result, Veterans Affairs undertook two research projects. One was a quantitative study with Statistics Canada to identify the population's size and the characteristics of survivors who married a veteran who was over 60. The second was a qualitative study with the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research to examine the financial well-being of these survivors to better understand the nature of their financial situation and what unmet needs they may have.

The department uses the results of this research to determine the best way to support the survivors. In the meantime, we encourage spouses of deceased veterans to contact Veterans Affairs Canada if they are having difficulty—

Veterans AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

One moment, please.

The hon. member is rising on a point of order.

There are only points of order if there is a technical issue. Is there a technical issue?