Brigitte Sansoucy

[Health, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, the government cut funding to 33% of the organizations that provide care to Canadians living with HIV. In April, the Minister of Health stated at committee that she had reversed those cuts by investing $30 million in new money from the budget in the federal initiative to address HIV. Oddly enough, the public health directorate later said that the minister had misspoken.

Why is she so confused about her own department, and is she reversing the cuts made to those organizations, yes or no?

[Canada Revenue Agency, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that they are going to continue.

Unfortunately, last week, we learned that the Liberals are continuing to sign new treaties. They signed a new treaty with another tax haven, Cook Islands. It will now be possible to bring tax-free profits back to Canada. This new tax treaty is much too flexible and mostly favours the wealthy. It will create more tax evasion than we have already. The government is not cracking down on existing tax evasion. It is creating more. Even if the government recovers money by investing in the fight against tax evasion, it is losing even more by signing a new tax treaty. It makes no sense at all. How can the government claim to be taking action against tax evasion while doing the opposite? Why is it using all its resources to track tax criminals while giving them the tools they need to carry out their schemes by signing this sort of treaty? I am thinking of the poor employees at the CRA who have more work to do and whose jobs become even more complicated every time a new agreement is signed.

When will the government actually get to the root of the problem and revise the tax treaties signed with tax havens?

[Canada Revenue Agency, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, here we are moments from midnight on June 14, and I am moved to rise in the House because, on March 8, I questioned the Prime Minister about penalty-free amnesty deals and tax treaties with countries that are known tax havens. The purpose of my question was to find out when the government would take action to end these unacceptable practices.

I applaud the fact that the Liberal government invested about $500 million in the Canada Revenue Agency to fight tax evasion, but it is going about this all wrong by failing to tackle the root of the problem. What is the point of fighting these tricky tax manoeuvres when our own laws make them possible?

We must take action on the legislative front. We need to tighten our tax laws and punish the immoral act of tax avoidance to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. We could use those revenues to invest in infrastructure, tackle poverty, and create good jobs. We need to restore tax fairness, tighten the rules on shell companies, and revise the treaties that allow large multinationals to repatriate profits from tax havens to Canada tax-free. It is unfair that it is often the wealthiest in our society who get out of paying their fair share, when they also use roads, hospitals, and schools paid for by everyone.

Every year we are losing billions of dollars that could be invested in our communities, whether in education, health, or our social programs. Organizations in my riding and across the country need those large sums of money for our communities. This situation is unacceptable. The government needs to reform the tax laws and regulations in order to crack down on those who use tax avoidance schemes that, although not fully illegal, are definitely immoral.

In 2015, wealthy Canadians invested $185.5 billion in tax havens, or 25% of all foreign investments for that year. That is more than was invested in China or Europe, but these tax havens are very small, sparsely populated states. We suspect that these investments are in no means meant to finance any real activities, but instead seek to free a handful of people from paying their taxes, people who think they are above the law. That money must stay in Canada so that it can be invested in our infrastructure and our public services. Unfortunately, because of the government's inaction, billions of dollars continue to disappear in the sun.

This past January and February, I held public consultations that drew hundreds of people. The people of my riding are concerned about tax evasion; it is an issue they raise with me often.

Like my NDP colleagues, I receive hundreds of email on the subject. The NDP moved a motion in the House calling on the government to immediately address the issue of tax havens and end the practice of offering penalty-free amnesty deals for tax cheats.

Today, I want to focus on the treaties that our country has signed with tax havens. Some taxpayers are using our lenient tax laws and morally questionable schemes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes in Canada. The wealthiest members of our society are able to use some of these tax treaties to fund tax schemes and pay accounting experts to help them get away with paying as little tax as possible. They are playing with fire and when they get a little too close to the flame and get caught, they have the means to pay tax lawyers to defend them. In the end, they always win. Meanwhile, middle-class Canadians are penalized for the slightest error on their income tax return. We have a two-tiered tax system, which is unfair. It is truly appalling.

Will the Canadian government continue to bestow favours on the very wealthy?

[Main Estimates, 2017-18, June 14th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

What I took from her speech is that she is concerned about the sound management of public funds. That is a concern that I share. Like her, I believe that if we really want to work for the people we represent, we need to respect the respective roles of members on both sides of the House.

I represent 25 municipalities that are very concerned about government infrastructure spending. The member spoke about the fact that the committee members did not have enough time to ask questions to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and others.

This evening, we do not have enough time to ask the government questions. If we did have the time we needed, what questions could we ask this government?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, June 14th, 2017]

With respect to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development’s mandate letter and, in particular, the expectation to “undertake a broad review of the EI system with the goal of modernizing our system of income support for unemployed workers that leaves too many workers with no unemployment insurance safety net”: (a) what (i) consultations, (ii) steps, (iii) discussions, have been carried out by the Minister with non governmental stakeholders to modernize the EI system; (b) what (i) consultations, (ii) steps, (iii) discussions, have been carried out with stakeholders by the Minister, his officials, any other minister or any other officials; (c) what was the outcome of these (i) consultations, (ii) steps, (iii) discussions; (d) when does the government expect to undertake a broad review of the EI system with the goal of modernizing our system of income support for unemployed workers; (e) what is the timeframe for the review in (d); and (f) when will the findings of this broad review in (d) be tabled in Parliament?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, June 14th, 2017]

With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in fiscal year 2016-2017: what grants, loans, contributions and contracts were awarded by the government, broken down by (i) department and agency, (ii) municipality, (iii) name of recipient, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which expenditure was allocated, (vi) date?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, June 14th, 2017]

With regard to the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program, between the program’s launch on January 1, 2015 and April 13, 2017: (a) which proposals have been submitted from the constituency; and (b) which proposals have been approved?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, June 14th, 2017]

With regard to the Skills Link program: (a) what is the program’s total budget since 2015, broken down by (i) calendar year, (ii) constituency; (b) what is the program’s total budget per constituency for 2015, 2016 and 2017; and (c) what are the criteria for determining the amount allocated to an applicant?

[Physician-Assisted Dying, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that two Quebeckers suffering from irremediable medical conditions and experiencing intolerable suffering have to go to court because they have been refused medical assistance in dying. However, they meet all the criteria set out by the Supreme Court in Carter. The problem is the physician-assisted dying legislation and its overly restrictive criterion concerning reasonably foreseeable natural death. This means that these individuals' rights were denied, and yet they are suffering.

What excuse is this government going to use again before really showing compassion?

[Public Services and Procurement, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Public Service Week, and public servants have been dealing with the frustration caused by the Phoenix pay system for over a year now.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada is encouraging its members to boycott any activities planned to celebrate the week, and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada is calling on the government to stop outsourcing essential services, including pay.

It has been over a year now, and this government has still not fixed the problems with Phoenix. When will these problems be fixed?