Alain Giguère

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is particularly interesting, and I thank the hon. member for his question. This shows that he read the Auditor General's report carefully.

The Auditor General made an observation. He said that the CRA is targeting individuals and has put a system in place to collect taxes. However, this system does not apply to businesses. Oops.

The other problem has to do with people who have a lot of taxes to pay. I am talking about tax bills over $10 million. The government's batting average is practically a big, fat zero. As for the little old lady who owes $800, I guarantee she will be taken to the cleaners. The government has the resources to collect from her and it has no problem doing so.

The Conservatives call this double standard, which is an integral part of their economic policies, tax fairness. However, this is not tax fairness. The Conservatives are betraying the people who elected them. That is serious.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a similar observation was made in the United States.

For example, multi-billionaire Warren Buffett said it does not make sense for him to make millions while being taxed at a significantly lower rate than his secretary. That man pays his taxes. He does not try to evade taxes. When the government tries to get people to pay their taxes, it does not have much credibility.

Those who pay their taxes are the very ones whose services are being cut. That is a problem. The government is constantly asking people to pay. They are not getting the services they need, but they still have to foot the bill. If the Auditor General proved anything, it is that they, not the very rich, are the ones targeted by the CRA.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi.

The NDP is in favour of this bill. For once, the Conservatives cannot accuse us of always being against the government. We are in favour of this bill, essentially because it is purely technical. It implements bilateral tax treaties with a certain number of countries, including Namibia, Serbia, Poland and Hong Kong, and makes amendments to treaties with Luxembourg and Switzerland.

This bill is worthwhile. It will make things easier for people who want to pay their taxes, who are not trying to defraud the government. Why would we be against virtue? We are pro-virtue. We are totally in favour of making it as easy as possible for people to pay taxes. However, I want to mention something important. Under Canadian tax law, any taxes paid in a foreign country are deducted from our nation's revenue. So much for savings.

This new rule makes it easier to pay taxes. Nothing more. If the government suddenly decided to harmonize tax regulations to make it easier for people filling out their tax returns, we would very much support that.

We disagree when the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of State for Finance tell us that the bill is an important step in the fight against tax evasion. Nothing could be further from the truth, and that is dangerous. The head of our country's finances is telling us that this bill offers a way to combat tax evasion. That is not true. All this bill does is make it easier for people who want to pay taxes to file their tax returns.

I want to point out to the House that Luxemburg and Switzerland are tax havens. These countries allow financial institutions to have numbered accounts and to be protected by banking secrecy. This enables people to hide money and do so secretly. This will continue to be allowed. Switzerland will co-operate if we present a warrant and proof of criminal charges. However, it will not tell us whether the main people involved in trafficking cocaine in Canada have bank accounts there. Let us be realistic: we cannot expect any co-operation from them. It is quite sad.

The Auditor General already indicated that Canada's tax debt has significantly increased. It has jumped from $18 billion to $29 billion. These are people who openly declare that they owe money. Quite often, if they do not pay it is not because they are dangerous criminals but because they simply cannot.

When you are stretched to the limit because you have to pay your mortgage and car and grocery bills, and maybe buy clothes for your children from time to time, you might not be in a position to pay taxes. Self-employed workers are a good example of that. When they get a cheque, they do not set part of it aside to pay taxes. When they get that cheque, it is already spent on everything they owe. They do not want to cut their electricity or telephone, so that is what they pay. That is what accounts for the $29 billion. That amount is absolutely not owed by people who have made use of tax havens. These are our neighbours, our friends and our parents who had a hard time paying taxes because they had too many other bills to pay. Paying taxes is an expense, just like groceries or the electricity bill.

This is a problem. When people cannot pay taxes, they are not able to pay all their other bills either. The $29 billion represent a lot of people who will file for personal bankruptcy. That is quite often the problem.

The second problem with the $29 billion is that the greater the debt, the less likely it is to be repaid. This bill does not solve this problem, and that is truly unfortunate. The bill is being presented as a significant piece of legislation that will get results. In fact, I do not deny its positive effects for people who are willing to pay taxes. Rather, the problem I see concerns those people who are unable to pay taxes either because they do not earn income or because they have too many bills to pay. The household debt ratio is now at 163%. The bill will not mitigate this problem.

There are huge numbers of tax havens, and Canadians have put their money in well-known tax shelters. Indeed, $53 billion has been invested in Barbados, $25 billion in the Cayman Islands and $23 billion in Ireland. A total of $13.8 billion has been invested in Luxembourg, a country with which we have treaties. Bermuda has received $13.2 billion in Canadian investments. This represents 51% of Canada's foreign bank investments. This figure has doubled since 1987.

What was the government's response? It decided to cut the Canada Revenue Agency's budget by $250 million. Europe, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece are in a deep economic slump, largely because they did not collect the taxes owed to the government. Not paying taxes is a national sport in those countries.

The level of debt in those countries shows that these people are particularly adept at tax evasion. Why do they do it? Simply put, it is because tax equality is non-existent. Why ask someone to work 40 or 60 hours a week to make ends meet and pay taxes when he knows full well that a mafia member in Sicily, a crooked politician in Greece or a flashy real estate developer in Spain will not pay taxes?

Why ask someone to keep paying taxes for services when the rich are not paying those same taxes? The poor man is paying the rich man's share. That lack of tax fairness is the main reason people in certain European countries avoid taxes and shirk their responsibilities. This government is leading us down exactly the same path.

Instead of saying that they will do things differently since Spain's and Italy's economies have tanked, the Conservatives are following the worst examples. Then they say that they are doing well, that they are among the best. They should not be following the worst examples then. This problem will not go away overnight. Tax evasion requires two things. First, it requires the means to do it without getting caught. Second, it requires motivation, which exists when tax fairness does not.

The NDP has proven its good faith by supporting technical measures such as this bill. However, do not try to tell us that this law will solve the problem of tax evasion. That is untrue.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a very interesting agreement with Hong Kong and with countries such as Switzerland. The problem is that the agreement with Switzerland, in particular, does not solve the problem of Swiss banks and their bank secrecy. Switzerland is now, and will continue to be, a tax haven.

Can my esteemed colleague explain how it is that this legislation will mean that people who pay their taxes will not be penalized, but it will not prevent those who do not want to pay their taxes from continuing to do so, thanks to Switzerland's bank secrecy?

[Petitions, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a series of qualified petitions on employment insurance. These people are calling for a reform of the current employment insurance system, since it must serve the people who need it.

[Government Expenditures, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board still does not appear to have found the $3.1 billion he lost track of, so I would like to come back to that. Maybe he should look for it in the secret fund controlled by the Prime Minister's chief of staff.

My question is simple: is the government still spending money from the $12.1 billion set aside for public safety?

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are getting a national park. My goodness, that is always nice and this one is especially great.

I have been off the coast of Nova Scotia, where the waters can sometimes sway us to and fro. It is always so nice. We have a beautiful country. Now, in this House, we are going to collectively guarantee that there will be an extra little slice just for us and ensure that we leave behind a little more than we received. At least, we are going to figure out how to leave behind at least as much as we received, not less.

Unfortunately, the problem is that this government's record when it comes to the environment is not up to snuff. Sometimes the Conservatives rush through things.

I would like my distinguished colleague to say that I am right to be enthusiastic, that we are getting a nice park and it will never be threatened.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. However, we are talking about nations, and the government is asking them to give up some of their ancestral rights.

The member said so himself. He said that derogations are necessary. The Conservatives are therefore giving themselves the power to override the jurisdiction and ancestral rights of first nations, but what are the first nations getting in return? A promise? The government will have to follow through on that promise.

I am not making up the fact that 117 communities do not have running water. I did not pull that number out of thin air. The member said that his government made many investments. Clearly, those investments are not enough. They are not enough to set up and maintain the necessary infrastructure.

That leads me to a second problem. Since these nations do not have the necessary training or resources, the government needs to invest and ensure that the investment does not deteriorate, yet nothing is planned in that regard, and that is the problem.

If the Conservatives want to demonstrate their good faith, they must go one small step further.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that all members of the House voted in favour of giving first nations access to education and safe drinking water. I sincerely believe in good faith; however, the Conservatives need to wake up and realize that they are dragging their feet and they need to tell us why. We are talking about $4 billion over 10 years. Let us look at what has been going on with us and first nations. When the two peoples or traditions were pitted against each other, there was one winner and one real loser.

Could we not just simply extend a hand to them and assure them that we are going to work together?

That is all they are asking. Nothing more.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

Let me point out a few unfortunate facts. At this time, over 117 aboriginal communities have no access to running water and waste water treatment. I can guarantee that if this was happening in one of our municipalities, this Parliament would be up in arms. Imagine 117 members of parliament seeing one of their white communities deprived of water. They would not stand for that.

Unfortunately, these 117 communities have no water. They will continue having no water, and the only reason I can think of to explain this situation in a country like ours does not make me happy. I am proud of my country, but this is humiliating. If these were not aboriginal, first nations and Indian communities, they would have gotten their water long ago. This is called racism, and it does not do us credit.

The reasons for opposing Bill S-8 are self-evident. This bill affects thousands of homes with no running water and no sewage treatment and 117 communities lacking the basic necessities. Sadly, this has gone on for decades.

It is not rocket science. It will take 10 years and $4.5 billion. Yet, all this government offered was $330 million, and then it attached all kinds of conditions to it. That is the problem. That is the crux of the matter. We, as Canadians, need to understand that that is why people are rejecting this legislation.

Every member in the House wants first nations to have access to drinking water. The question is how to make that happen. Considering the proposed approach, we have to wonder how sincere they are about all Canadians—and they are Canadians—having the same rights. The right to water is essential, as is the right to air. We cannot just do without.

Not only do we need to invest in the technical aspects, but if we really want to address the issue of drinking water once and for all, we need to give them both the technical abilities and the resources to maintain the water system. We need to address expertise and technological culture along with the economics of it.

Obviously, there is no way they can bring in engineers from Montreal or Toronto, or plumbers from Thunder Bay, Fort Chimo, the Laurentians or the Gaspé every time there is a problem or every time something breaks.

These are nations, and a nation must have the proper technological abilities to address truly essential issues. Drinking water supply is certainly an essential issue. That is what it means to be a nation. Being a nation means having the ability to create, develop and manage appropriate laws so that citizens have access to water. If we want to give them nation status—without treating them like simple-minded children—we need to take action.

As a French Canadian, I have been called a white nigger by an MP. It was odd for 2012.

I am putting myself in their shoes. I have seen them in the Standing Committee on Finance. They said that the suicide rate where they live is staggering. It is not that more people commit suicide, it is that they do not have the social services to cope with people who are suicidal.

I saw the premier of a territory beg the committee. She said that people were dropping like flies. I saw committee members behave in a condescending manner. If I were that person, I might not have remained so polite. She did remain polite and I seriously wonder if she made a mistake. She might have been better off blowing a gasket. She might have been better off saying enough is enough.

Aboriginal demonstrations were held. People said they would like to be able to live and that that was not too much to ask. Not having enough water or the necessary means to obtain it is an economic consequence. Aboriginal communities are not rolling in money, despite what some might think. Aboriginal communities are not full of multi-millionaires. That is just an urban legend. It is odd that urban legends are often about an ethnic community, particularly when that community is a visible minority.

I see Canada as an extremely generous and great country. I think that is an accurate assessment for the most part. We have helped peoples in the past and we have been quite generous. When Europe was oppressed, we sacrificed tens of thousands of our own. We spared no expense. However, when it comes to aboriginals, that generosity disappears.

One of the problems with this bill is that it calls for a lot of sacrifices. Aboriginal peoples are being asked to give up some of their rights in exchange for access to water. It is hard to build the concept of nationhood when you are forced to give up your rights as a nation. It does not stop there, however. The bill would force aboriginal peoples to give up their rights in exchange for maybe one day getting drinking water. This is a prime example of the government not walking the talk. The government keeps talking about it, but the water is not there. That is a problem.

The government cannot say that this will be resolved in 10 years. I challenge any member here to say that they would wait 10 years before giving drinking water to a neighbourhood in their city or municipality. Any politician knows that that that is not the way to go if you want to be re-elected. Unfortunately, first nations members often do not vote. If they did, there would be far fewer MPs in this government. This kind of moral misconduct is unacceptable.

Bill S-8 should not be defeated just because it is a bad bill for first nations, even though that is true. Bill S-8 should not be defeated just because it is a bad bill technically. That is also true. The bill should also be defeated because if we want to remain Canadian and remain a generous nation and a great people, this bill must be relegated to the dustbin of history.