Debates of April 28th, 2023

The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Business Corporations Act

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first ask for the consent of the House to share my time with my friend, the one and only member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, during the first part of my speech, in March, I spoke in favour of this bill. It is a good bill. It is a step toward transparency that will help fight tax evasion and fraud.

The bill is respectful of the provinces. In fact, Quebec's registry has been in place for almost a month.

However, the tax cheats who were exposed in the Paradise papers did not create their shell companies in Canada; they created them in tax havens. The bill does nothing to address that. The work has only just begun.

Cracking down on fraudsters who use tax havens requires a global registry—not just a registry of the real company owners, but also a registry of real beneficial owners of trusts. I am thinking, for example, of the real beneficial owners of the Isle of Man trusts that KPMG Canada created for Canadian tax evaders, the ones who were granted amnesty by the Canada Revenue Agency. It sounds like a huge undertaking, but it is not. In fact, this registry already exists to a large extent, and it is maintained, for one, in Luxembourg by a consortium of financial institutions. Even tax cheats like their banks to know they have assets somewhere; it is good for their credit.

This registry is available to financial institutions, but not to governments that want to go after fraud. I think we can all agree that there is something wrong with that. Transparency, public registries and so on are excellent tools against fraud, but they do nothing against profiteers, against those who take advantage of all the loopholes in the Income Tax Act to use tax havens legally. Those individuals do not need to hide their income. All they need is a good accountant to make sure their income is not taxable, even when it is declared.

The United States forced Canada's hand by imposing its idea of endorsing a 15% minimum global tax rate at the G20. The latest budget introduces Joe Biden's minimum global tax rate. Using tax havens will become less attractive, but the government is doing the bare minimum to fight tax havens. Income repatriated from tax havens that have information exchange agreements with Canada remains tax-free. This has to stop.

Yes, we will support Bill C-42, but it does not go far enough. A registry is good, but tax fairness is better.

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

Madam Speaker, a part of dealing with the issue is bringing in legislation, but there are also budgetary measures that the government has taken in the last few years. We have beefed up the resources for CRA: A few budgets back it was close to half a billion dollars, and several hundred million dollars followed that.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts. Yes, the legislation is really important, but along with that legislation one has to establish, as we have, the financial resources, in good part, to be able to deal with the issue at hand.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple answer: Yes, but all that is not enough.

I want to talk about the example I gave at the end of my speech. In committee we looked at the issue of who really profited from the Isle of Man trusts created by KPMG for Canadian tax cheats. We worked for a long time on that issue.

In the United States, when the same thing was done, there were investigations, criminal prosecutions and even jail time. The IRS, the Canada Revenue Agency counterpart, put a stop to it. Here, there have been no criminal prosecutions and no jail time. Even though we have laws, even though we have the funding, we do not have the will. The minister refuses to use her discretionary authority to make the CRA do more.

We must change the way things are done by this government and the CRA, because we can see that our laws and funding are still not enough.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, allow me to return to the KPMG issue and the tax fraud scheme for which it faced criminal charges in the United States but was cleared of wrongdoing by the Canada Revenue Agency.

At the time, we reminded the Minister of National Revenue that she had the power, by law, to launch an investigation that would have been led by a Tax Court of Canada judge. The minister still insists that the CRA is independent and that she cannot launch an investigation. Clearly, she is unfamiliar with the law.

Despite all these lofty legislative initiatives, I wonder what my colleague thinks about the message this is sending about Canadian leadership in fighting international tax fraud.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Mirabel for the question.

The minister came to committee and told us that she did not want to get involved in this, that she considered the Canada Revenue Agency to be independent. However, Mr. Lareau, a global tax expert, came to committee and told us that the minister was the only person in the country who had the power to launch an investigation. She has the power but is choosing not to use it, while the government is choosing to leave her in her position. It is not good enough, and it is unacceptable.

We are seeing some progress being made worldwide under the leadership of the United States. The Biden administration is saying enough is enough. The wealthy need to pay a minimum of 15%. Now the G20, the OECD and other groups of rich countries are following suit.

From day one, Canada has systematically been lagging behind others. It also does the minimum and maintains this system of impunity. The message being sent to KPMG and potential beneficial owners is that there will be no consequences if they try; at best, they will pay less taxes, at worst, they will have to pay it back. The message that is being sent is unacceptable.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that the federal registry is not enough to fight money laundering because most small and medium-sized businesses in Canada are regulated by the individual provinces and territories.

Does my Bloc Québécois colleague think that the Government of Quebec could enter into an agreement with the federal government to improve the federal level's capacity to fight money laundering while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, which he asked in excellent French. I really appreciate that.

In my opinion, what we are seeing in this bill is a possible harmonization with the provinces. It seems to be respectful of the rights of the provinces. For example, Quebec has had its own registry for a month now. This will require collaboration and information sharing, as with all countries around the world, but things seem to be on the right track. Obviously, we must always do more to fight against money laundering, and our job is to remain vigilant to ensure that everything works well and that we can do more.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that is of crucial importance to the Quebec and Canadian economies, specifically, Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

Bill C-42 was introduced in the House of Commons to modernize the Canada Business Corporations Act and make it more competitive and adapted to the current needs of businesses. The amendments to the act seek to enhance the transparency, responsibility and sustainability of Canadian businesses while ensuring their competitiveness on the international stage.

The bill has several important provisions. First, it introduces an obligation for corporations to declare their real economic interests to enhance transparency and fight money laundering and terrorist financing. This provision will also help prevent corporations from hiding their true ownership behind opaque structures and improve the public's confidence in the integrity of the corporate system.

The bill also brings in a new corporate social and environmental responsibility strategy. Corporations will be held accountable for social, environmental and governance factors in their decisions and their trade action. The purpose of this provision is to encourage businesses to adopt a long-term vision and make a positive contribution to society in addition to generating profits.

My colleague from Joliette, who is also our finance critic, had questions the last time this bill was introduced. His question was the following: If business A belongs to company B, which belongs to corporation C, can we find out who the beneficial owner is? What happens when a business is in another, less co-operative country where information is not automatically shared, like in a tax haven? Will Bill C‑42 allow us to identify the true owner?

This question needs to be answered. Countless reports and investigations on multinational corporate activities indicate that organizational charts and operational structures are not always clear. The takeover of national security sensitive sectors or sectors that might jeopardize our supply chains is a real concern for our party.

The example we are talking about here of a company that is owned by a chain of other companies can create a situation where it is difficult to identify the real owner, particularly if one or more of the companies are located in countries that do not have automatic information-sharing agreements.

For example, I am thinking of two places in particular from a case I was looking at recently, where, at the centre of the company's complex structure were shell companies located in Labuan, a territory of Malaysia, and the British Virgin Islands, two places where strict laws and secrecy prevent the public and foreign courts from accessing information about the real owners of these companies.

The two shell corporations were involved in transactions in France, Brazil and the United States. How are those countries managing this issue right now? Does the existing legislation provide tools for better monitoring and more flexibility in dealing with the challenges of the ongoing technological transition? I hope so.

Although the new provisions of the bill improve the transparency of Canadian companies, they do not necessarily make it possible for Canadian authorities to identify the real owners of Canadian companies owned by entities located in uncooperative countries or tax havens.

In such cases, Canadian authorities may have to rely on other methods to identify beneficial owners, such as requesting information from foreign authorities, using agreements for mutual legal assistance or relying on other sources of information such as media reports or leaked documents. It is therefore important that the teams monitoring and conducting assessments are well equipped.

In February 2020, the Quebec government announced its intention to create a registry of beneficial owners of companies. Bill 78, an act to modernize legislative provisions respecting legal auditing, was introduced in the Quebec National Assembly in June 2020 and passed in December of the same year. Bill 78 contains provisions to create a registry of beneficial owners and make it public.

We could take a closer look at the challenges of setting up such a registry and determine where the various provinces stand on this issue. How will the registry work? I look forward to hearing from officials on this issue.

It is important to note that Canada has a number of information exchange agreements with other countries, including tax information exchange agreements that would allow Canadian authorities to access information from foreign companies operating in Canada.

These agreements have made it easier for Canadian authorities to identify beneficial owners, even in cases where companies are owned by entities located in uncooperative jurisdictions or tax havens. I would really like to have a chance to hear the opinions of experts, as well as some recommendations for conditions that could be considered for the next round of negotiations with certain countries.

The bill also includes amendments to strengthen shareholders' rights. It gives shareholders the right to vote on executive compensation and management succession plans. This provision will ensure greater transparency and accountability to shareholders, while increasing board members' accountability. We are pleased that some of our recommendations caught the attention of the department and have been included in Bill C‑42.

Finally, the bill introduces amendments to facilitate access to capital for Canadian corporations. It simplifies the process for issuing shares and eliminates some existing restrictions, making it easier and more efficient for companies to raise capital. In short, the act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts is a crucial bill for the future of our economy in Quebec and in Canada.

The proposed amendments aim to strengthen the transparency, accountability and sustainability of Canadian companies, while enhancing their ability to compete internationally. As a member of Parliament, I am certain that this legislation is necessary to protect the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians and to ensure long-term economic growth.

In conclusion, I would like to draw a comparison related to my duties as critic for sport, a field in which good governance has been raised as an issue. Governance and accountability are key factors in sport. Governance refers to the way sport organizations are managed and led, while accountability refers to the way actors involved in sport are held accountable for their actions.

In terms of governance, sport organizations must be managed transparently, effectively and fairly. Decisions must be democratic, and all stakeholders must have a say in the decision-making process. Governance structures must also be accountable to their members and to stakeholders.

Accountability in sports has to do with how those involved are held responsible for their actions. That can include the responsibility of athletes when it comes to fair play and following the rules and the responsibility of coaches and the heads of sports organizations when it comes to keeping players safe and promoting a healthy sports environment.

In the end, good governance and accountability are essential to ensuring the integrity and durability of sports. Sports organizations must be transparent in how they operate, accountable to their stakeholders and held responsible for their actions in order to maintain the trust and respect of fans and sports communities. It is unfortunate that the funding was established without a full understanding of what sports organizations would have to do to demonstrate real change. Obviously, I am thinking here of the government restoring funding to Hockey Canada.

We need to ensure that the intentions of Bill C‑42 live up to expectations, particularly those that will be expressed before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I therefore call on all members of the House to support this important bill and to work together to pass it as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, creating a public, searchable corporate registry would ensure a much higher sense of accountability, and the government over the last number of years has expressed its interest in ensuring that everyone is paying their fair share when it comes to taxes and that there is more transparency. However, it is also important to recognize, as I did in the previous question I asked the member's colleague, that there have been significant amounts of financial resources allocated to the CRA. That money is there to support the idea of looking at who the people are who are paying taxes.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts. It is great that Ottawa is doing it and the Province of Quebec is moving forward on it, but it is really important that we see consistency from coast to coast, with other provinces and territories also providing similar legislation.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, everyone must collaborate, but the federal government must show leadership and set an example on the international stage. It must send the message that it will no longer tolerate tax havens and fraudulent actions. For me, that is a problem. Let us take the Panama papers, for example. Quebec showed leadership. It recouped more money than the federal government, so yes, collaboration is important.

I have looked at Quebec laws. The co-operative financial sector, Desjardins for example, is governed by Quebec's laws, and I find that it is much more effective in fighting these types of situations. There are things to think about, of course, but the federal government must be able to set the example and put an end to tax fraud.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting this bill. I would like to know if they are open to accepting some amendments to protect the privacy of small and medium-sized businesses and individuals, in certain cases, and to create more rules so that this work is not left to the civil servants after the bill is passed.

Is the Bloc Québécois open to protecting confidentiality in some cases?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but think of a debate that my colleague raised in the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. The question was whether we were entitled to know the details of an $8‑billion to $13‑billion federal investment in a Volkswagen project. That element of transparency was at the heart of our discussions.

I can also draw a parallel with sport. Confidentiality agreements keep athletes silent and force them to keep quiet when they are victims. Confidentiality is a very delicate issue. It is always arbitrary. I think we need to be able to really reflect on that.

I am counting on my colleague to bring experts on this issue to committee so that we can come to an agreement and come up with the best possible amendments to this legislation, to make it as robust as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague very clearly outlined the problems and what more needs to be done, especially by Canada and the international community, about the sheer amount of wealth we lose out on every year to tax evasion and dirty money funnelling through the system.

One of the parts in the bill to ensure compliance is a $5,000 penalty for corporations and up to $200,000 for individuals. I respect the fact that the legislation is trying to uncover the identity of the individual, but what does the member think about the paltry $5,000 fine for corporations? We know there are lots of avenues open to people to hide their wealth in corporate structures. Does he think that this particular financial penalty may need to be looked at and perhaps stiffened to ensure better compliance with the legislation?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think harsh penalties are needed. We must not give criminals a chance in life. Like my colleague, I am a progressive person who believes in sharing the wealth.

It is pretty rich for the federal government to claim that it cannot provide decent health transfers because it does not have the money. We know where that money is. At the end of day, it means that our seniors, people aged 65 and older, cannot increase their income, and it means that our emergency rooms are overflowing. That is because our money is sitting in tax havens. Firm action is needed.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today and speak to Bill C-42. There is a lot of talk in this place about government gatekeepers, and rightly so. There are a lot of important decisions made within government that have an impact on Canadians' lives, and Parliament is a place to hold the decision-makers to account and to press for better decisions. Elections are the place to press for better decision-makers. This is the place to press for better decisions.

I think the case that the New Democrats have been trying to make throughout this Parliament and many others is that there is not just the problem of government gatekeeping; there are actually a lot of private sector gatekeepers. Too often, the leader of the Conservative Party and this government are either ignoring them or working with them behind the scenes to try to create more room for their power and their influence, which is not regularly held to account by a democratically elected Parliament, and to allow their power to flourish. If we look at our economy, there are a lot of ways in which they are able to do that, including a lot of rules around commercial secrecy and other ways. There are people who own significant chunks of our economy, whether that is our land, our real estate, our manufacturing or our resources, and we do not actually have a good way of knowing who those people are.

That creates a lot of problems for Canadians, who feel the pinch of that power acting in the economy, through unjustified price hikes, for example, the likes of which we have seen a lot of in the last few years in Canada. A significant contributor to inflation has been outsized price increases in a number of industries. There are also people who are hiding behind corporation numbers and making important land-use policy decisions because of the power of their own ownership. Yes, municipalities have a role to play in zoning but we also know that ownership matters a lot and people can choose to do a lot of things with their property. In some cases that has a real impact on communities, and we do not even know who is doing the work. That is why something like a public beneficial ownership registry is so important, because it will actually allow us to put names to the people who have an important controlling stake in certain parts of our local economies and our national economy.

That is important for any number of reasons. One is that we know that Canada is known internationally as a place where a lot of money gets laundered. I think it is a sad fact about Canada's reputation and Canada's actions in the world that we have allowed ourselves to be a place that people look to in order to launder the proceeds of crime. That is something that has been going on for a long time. In fact, the Canadian banking industry had an important role to play in setting up tax havens in other places.

Canadian bankers could go to places like the Bahamas or the Caicos Islands, where it was advantageous to say, “Oh, we are not like those Americans; we are allied with the Brits.” They could do that and get their hands into the local economy there and set up a banking infrastructure that would serve their interests and the interests of their clients, when it suited them better to say, “Oh, well, one cannot bank directly with the Americans but one can bank with us and we are buddy-buddy with them.” They did that too, and they actually helped create the international infrastructure of tax havens that is now costing Canadians anywhere from $30 billion to $40 billion a year in lost taxable income because they are pushing it out of the country. As I say often, it has been hard even to know who some of the beneficiaries of these things are. When it comes to money laundering, if we want to get serious about taking action, it is important to be able to identify the beneficiaries of various corporate holdings. A public beneficial ownership registry would help with that.

When it comes to Russia's completely unwarranted and illegal invasion of Ukraine, we saw Canada come out of the gate quickly with a lot of strong words about sanctions, but the follow-up, in terms of enforcement, has been rather pathetic. There is no evidence of Canada actually doing a lot of meaningful work to follow up on those sanctions and to make Russia hurt. One of the reasons why that is the case, and I think there is more that the government can do under the existing rules, is that it needs tools like a public beneficial ownership registry in order to be able to effect that work well. That will help identify the natural persons behind the corporate persons and make it easier for us to pursue those folks in the appropriate way.

I talked a bit about tax havens already, and I have talked about the problem of money laundering. The fact of the matter is that when we talk about the people at the top, who make the most money, we are not just talking about salaries. Usually the wealthiest do not make most of their money through an annual salary. They make most of their money in rent off various kinds of assets, whether real estate assets or other kinds of assets. They get dividends; that is a form of rent on the capital that they invest in companies. That is how they make their money.

If we accept the findings of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, from a year and a half or two years ago, about wealth distribution in Canada, this follows a trend for a lot of western countries. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that now 40% of Canadians are sharing 1% of Canada's wealth, and 1% of Canadians own and control 40% of Canada's wealth. If members think that is completely out of whack, I agree completely.

That is part of what is driving many of the problems that most Canadians, who are not in that top 1%, are experiencing. Those are the folks who are really struggling with inflation. Those are the folks who cannot find a home. Those are the folks who do not know how they are going to get to work because they cannot afford the car they have.

That is not just a function of the carbon tax, which the Conservatives would have people believe. What is wrong with accepting that narrative is that it does not appreciate the problem, so it does not offer a real solution. Cutting the carbon tax is not going to fix those structural deficits. It is not the carbon tax that has led to massive wealth inequality, and it is not the way we are going to solve it.

One way we might solve it is by having a tax, not just on high income, but on high wealth. In order to do that, we need to be able to track the wealth of the 1% that owns and controls 40% of Canada's wealth. The way to do that is through a public beneficial ownership registry, which would make it easier to identify the real people, who are far fewer than the many corporate personas across the economy. If we could trace it back, we would find that it is a much smaller number of people who are behind and who are the recipients of so much of Canada's wealth and resources. A public beneficial ownership registry is important in that respect.

Partly because of the conflict and the illegal war in Ukraine, many of our international partners are moving forward quickly on public beneficial ownership registries. This legislation is important because it keeps Canada well within the international norm, which, on this issue, is moving in the right direction. This is not something Canada should be falling behind on, so I am pleased with the bill.

Folks at Publish What You Pay Canada have done some excellent work, first of all, suggesting what a public beneficial ownership registry should look like, and then following up and providing useful feedback on the legislation. The good news is that they are largely satisfied, and I think a lot of folks who follow this kind of issue feel that this is pretty good legislation.

There has been discussion in the debate so far in the House about how so-called stacked ownership structures or different corporate ownership structures could be used to evade the public beneficial ownership registry. I think that is an important thing for us to look at in committee.

New Democrats are certainly open to discussions about how to improve the legislation, but I feel it is important that we do keep this moving at a good pace so that we keep up not only with our international partners, who have accepted the wisdom of having this kind of registration, but also with many provinces within Canada, which have seen the wisdom of that and have been acting in their own jurisdictions to implement a public beneficial ownership registry.

One of the good components of the design of this federal registry is that it is meant to be a registry that can be compatible with provincial efforts and allow provinces to onboard at different times as they have their own debates and pass their own legislation in their provincial legislatures. I understand the government is working on this. I commend it for that effort; I think that is a good thing. The hope is that we will eventually have a registry in every province and territory that will contribute seamlessly to the public beneficial ownership registry of Canada, and that is a very good thing.

With all those reasons for having a public beneficial ownership registry in mind, and some optimism about the course that this bill has taken and the good work done so far, I am very much looking forward to voting in favour of this at second reading and sending it to committee, so that we can enhance the bill where possible and ensure that Canada quickly joins the ranks of countries across the world that have public beneficial ownership registries.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member has made. The issue of tax fairness is really important to Canadians. It is one of the reasons why one of the very first actions this government took upon being elected back in 2015 was to establish an increase in the tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. We see that as a very strong positive. At the same time, we enhanced the tax break for Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. Through the years, we have been able to invest a great deal of money, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, to ensure the CRA has the financial resources to reinforce the issue of tax fairness and go after individuals who are trying to avoid paying taxes.

What are the member's thoughts with respect to other provincial legislatures across the country and the important role they play in passing legislation of a similar nature?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying in my concluding remarks, it is very important that the provinces be on board. Many provinces are showing leadership already. I think it is one of the virtues of the way the government is proceeding on this that provinces will be able to onboard and provide information out of their own registries into the federal registry. I understand there has been a lot of discussion between the federal government and the provinces.

What I would say with respect to the tax fairness points that my colleague raised is simply this. As Canadians, we look around at other jurisdictions and see revelations like the Panama papers and others. We hear the government talk about investing in recovering some of those funds, but the record is that Canada has not and other jurisdictions have. When we hear about the resources given to the CRA, they seem to be spent more on chasing the poor to recover CERB funds, which they were encouraged to get by this very government, while the big tax cheats are getting away with it, either through tax havens or through the Canada wage subsidy program, from which the government has not even deigned to try to recover a dime.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member opposite has given any consideration to the kind of amendments he would want to see made to this bill in order to improve it.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, one thing that has emerged from debate in the House is that the question of stacked ownership structures is something we need to look at. I will not prejudge the outcome of that study by already thinking I know the answer to that, but I certainly think this is something the committee should be looking into. I hope that, in its wisdom, the committee will find some recommendations that make sense and can improve the bill in that regard.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the past, it has been common for the government to pass imperfect but still useful legislation and then tell us that it has done everything it can, it has taken action and there is nothing left to do.

This was true in the case of the whistle-blower legislation, which was passed 17 years ago. It is full of flaws, but for 17 years, we have been told that the job is done, even though there is no protection.

I have a question for the member for Elmwood—Transcona. Once we pass the bill that is before us today, will the job be done? What are the next major steps for the government if it really wants to get tough on tax evasion, especially internationally?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is no. The work will not end with the passage of this bill.

I would say it is not a matter of resources, because the Canada Revenue Agency has a lot of resources, but rather a matter of resource allocation. The agency is heavily focused right now on recovering CERB overpayments from Canadians who are already experiencing financial hardship.

When it comes to the high rollers with deep pockets, however, the agency leaves them alone. It really is a resource allocation issue. The Agency needs to focus on these high rollers. It has to stop chasing after people who do not have the means to repay the CERB—that is not a wise investment. It should be chasing down people who have the money to pay back what they owe.