Charlie Angus

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 26th, 2021]

With regard to budget 2016 and the government's commitment to provide $350 million per year in ongoing funding to enable the Canada Revenue Agency to combat tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance, broken down by fiscal year, from 2016 to date: (a) how much of this annual funding has gone to programs and services for (i) high-risk audits, (ii) international large business sector, (iii) high net worth compliance, (iv) flow-through share audits, (v) the foreign tax whistleblower program; (b) has this annual funding resulted in the hiring of additional auditors, and, if so, how many additional auditors have been hired, broken down by the programs and services in (a); (c) has this annual funding resulted in an increase in audits, and, if so, how many audits have been completed, broken down by the programs and services in (a); (d) has this annual funding resulted in an increase in assessments, and, if so, how many reassessments have been issued; (e) has this annual funding resulted in an increase in the number of convictions for international tax evasion, and, if so, how many convictions for international tax evasion have occurred; and (f) how much of this annual funding was not spent, and, if applicable, why?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 26th, 2021]

With regard to the government's commitment to launch consultations in the coming months on modernizing Canada's anti-avoidance rules as stated in the Fall Economic Statement 2020: (a) is funding already allocated to the consultation process, and, if so, what is the amount; (b) are staff already assigned, and, if so, how many full-time equivalents are assigned; (c) what is the anticipated list of issues and proposed changes to the consultation process; and (d) when is the consultation process expected to begin?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 26th, 2021]

With regard to the Fall Economic Statement 2020 and the additional $606 million over five years, starting in 2021-22, to enable the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to fund new initiatives and extend existing programs aimed at international tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance, broken down by year: (a) how does the CRA plan to allocate the additional funding, broken down by CRA programs and services; (b) what is the target number of auditors to be hired in terms of full-time equivalents, broken down by auditor category; (c) what portion of the additional funding is solely directed to combating international tax evasion; and (d) what portion of the additional funding is solely directed to aggressive international tax avoidance?

[Governor General's Act, April 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise and speak in the House.

The discussion regarding the Governor General could have been such an important one for Parliament. Certainly, things went terribly wrong with Madam Julie Payette. The issues of the toxic work environment, the harassment and the incredible amount of financial funding she will be receiving from the taxpayers for the rest of her life are legitimate discussions.

I think there is also a legitimate discussion to have about Canada's role with the monarchy. That would be a very good discussion, but we are not having that discussion because we are dealing with a bill that is essentially a stunt. It is really unfortunate. This is the member's last speech in the House, and he decided that he wanted it to be a stunt. He is treating the Governor General's office as though he has watched too many Disney cartoons and it has the coachmen, the horses and all of that. That is not the reality we are talking about. We are talking about an institution that has a specific role to play within the constitution of Canada. I would like to speak to that this morning.

I come from a long line of people who are very opposed to the monarchy in Canada. I am proud that I grew up in a family that has deep reservations about Canada's ties to it. I think a conversation about the monarchy is a very fair conversation. However, it does not mean the role of the Governor General is not an important position.

We recognize the Governor General's role of separating the Prime Minister from the notion of the Crown, however we conceive of the Crown, is an important division of powers. It is very important, and it distinguishes us from how the United States is set up. I think it can serve us well. The issue with Madam Payette is that obviously things went very wrong. This is a woman of extraordinary abilities and skills, but the vetting process was not done properly.

I disagree with my colleague in the Conservative Party that the Governor General is here to represent the Queen, who is the head of the Anglican church in England. That is fine for the U.K. I do not care what the Queen represents over there. I do not care what its church and state relations are. For me, one of the roles of the Governor General is to represent Canada on the international stage and to be a voice as our head of state in a symbolic manner. We have to very wisely and carefully choose people who reflect and understand the diversity of the country.

In defence of Madam Payette, I saw her speak on the international stage, and she was extraordinary. The 75th anniversary of the landings at Normandy was a very powerful time because the international community was gathered there. When we were in Europe, in the French and German media, there was definitely a big question about what the future of the alliance that freed Europe in 1944 and 1945 would be. This was with Brexit and Boris Johnson pulling the U.K. out of Europe. At that time we also had Donald Trump and the scene that America was walking away. There were a lot of questions when we were over in Normandy about what the vision would be for a unified common front to address our issues.

Madam Payette gave a speech that was extraordinary. I think it really moved people from the international community, and certainly the people of Normandy. She talked about what enormous sacrifices it took to build the post-war order of peace and the number of deaths and the amount of suffering the Second World War entailed to get us to a place where we understood that international norms and standards had to be the code. She also talked about how easy it would be to let that all slip away.

I mention that because it is worth recognizing that Madam Payette brought enormous skills to her capacity as Governor General. Her problem was the toxic work environment, the abuse of staff and the harassment. There are many famous and powerful people who treat staff in a brutal and unacceptable manner. We have the #MeToo movement because of it. In 2021, it is very important to say, and it does not matter how talented public officials are or what role they serve, that the issue of toxic work environments needs to be addressed.

Out of what happened with Madam Payette, I was hoping we would have heard the government lay down some ground rules for how we would deal with the Governor General, and that has not happened. I was hoping that the government would lay down some ground rules for proper vetting, to make sure that we are never in this situation again.

It raises a serious question, in terms of the remuneration that Madam Payette is going to receive, in terms of a pension for life and an expense account for life. My belief is that if someone left their post because they failed in the obligations they had, they should not be in a position to simply expect a cheque for life. To me, that is a breach with the Canadian people and the trust that the Canadian people put into this.

Canadian people do not pay much attention to the salary, pension and expenses of the Governor General because we assume that they are going to do the right thing. The right thing in this situation is that Madam Payette was forced to step down because of the toxic work environment that happened on her watch, and she was not eligible. We could have had that discussion today, but we did not. That is unfortunate. A bill in the House to talk about the terms that we sign a Governor General up for would be very helpful and positive, and would reassure the public.

In 1999, I followed the Queen on a national tour working as a journalist, and as I said, I come from a long line of Scottish anti-monarchists. One of the issues that really struck me was that the Queen worked very hard. Another one of the things that really struck me was the relationship that indigenous people in Canada had with the notion of the Crown and the Queen.

We have historic connections with the U.K. We could choose to change those arrangements, and that is perfectly within our rights. We could modernize them, and that is perfectly within our rights. We could have better systems of accountability, and that is something we are obligated to do. However, I do not think it helps to treat this as some kind of stunt and say that we are going to just pay the Governor General $1. Maybe the Bloc is perfectly fine with billionaires like Galen Weston being able to step up, but if we are going to have a Governor General, they have to be paid and they have to be paid a pension, because they have changed their lives, representing Canada. They can never just go back to being who they were.

This idea of paying them $1 is a joke. It is not serious. It is why I do not take this bill seriously. I am not going to spend much more time talking about it, because I think it is a waste of parliamentary effort.

I do want to say that it is really unfortunate that the member referred to Madam Payette as the “little lady”. These are forms of degrading women in public life that have no place. She has certainly done a hell of a lot more in her life than the member opposite.

Whether we agree with the Governor General or not, whether we have problems with how the Governor General operated, it is about showing respect. As I said, I come from a long line of anti-monarchists, but I show respect for the institution because it is the institution we have. The voters sent me here to work within the institutions we have, to build them up or to change them. Changing some of those institutions is much the work of Parliament right now. This bill, unfortunately, is not.

If there had been changes to the bill, if the bill had been about the vetting process, the pension or expenses, I would certainly have been more than willing to support it going forward. At this point, I see this bill as little more than a publicity stunt.

[The Budget, April 22nd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed by the current crisis at Laurentian University. It is clear that the Doug Ford government is dismantling an institution that is vital to the francophone, indigenous and anglophone communities in northern Ontario.

However, when I look at what the Liberals are doing, it is clear that the Liberal government has abandoned its obligation to provide funding for the Franco-Ontarian community and protect its rights. Why is the Liberal government refusing to provide funding to help stabilize the situation for the francophone community in northern Ontario?

[The Budget, April 22nd, 2021]

Madam Speaker, Elk Lake is a tough and scrappy town founded by Jack Monroe. He was a vaudeville superstar who also fought Jack Johnson and was a war hero. Descendants in Elk Lake are as tough as Jack Monroe, so I am very pleased that Eacom put $8.9 million into the Elk Lake sawmill to keep it sustainable.

I am glad to see some federal money going into supporting forestry, but my concern is that people are being gouged and totally ripped off on the price of lumber right now. When I go home to people in Elk Lake and my surrounding communities, they cannot even build a woodshed because of the price.

I would ask my colleague this: What does he think we need to do at the federal level? A two-by-four has gone from costing two bucks to eight bucks. It is completely affecting people's ability to build and do renovations at a time when we need to kick-start the economy.

[The Budget, April 20th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the economy, to me the economy is always the family economy, and we have seen year in, year out where over 60% of the workforce is unable to access EI, even though they may need it. One of the things the New Democrats pushed for was the recognition of the gig economy. They are self-employed and could not access EI. We are now going back to the idea that we will just have EI, and the government is going to cut the supports from $500 a week to $300 a week for contract workers and self-employed gig workers.

The reality is that this third wave is still hitting us and, in many of the regions we represent, the economy has not bounced back. We need a plan to get people through until we have a more solid footing so people can go back to work. Just $300 a week is not going to keep temporary workers, contract workers and gig workers able to pay their rent or pay their bills. They are not going to get through this.

[The Budget, April 20th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is really important for people to understand is how fundamentally different the economy of northern Ontario is from the rest of Ontario. We are resource-based and we are isolated. The resources that are created in the north go to Queen's Park or they go to Ottawa, and we have to go cap-in-hand and beg for programs to maintain some kind of balance.

I noticed one thing in the budget that is really important for people to recognize. The New Democrats have been pushing for FedNor to be a stand-alone agency for years, something the Conservatives refused to do. The Liberals have ridiculed it up until now and we have seen nothing from its northern members to defend northern Ontario. The Liberal government has finally realized that the New Democrats are right and has established FedNor as a stand-alone agency. It will be in the same category as all the other economic development agencies in the country.

Up until now, northern Ontario has been the poor, underfunded cousin. It is really important for the House to recognize that northern Ontario has a right to proper economic development and FedNor, as a stand-alone agency, will make a huge difference for our region.

[The Budget, April 20th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal budget is the best budget we could have had in 2015. In 2015, the New Democrats ran on child care and the Liberals ridiculed us. They thought $10-a-day child care was ridiculous and made so much fun of it. Now they understand the wisdom of it. On the $15 minimum wage, the Prime Minister, a millionaire's son, thought that was ridiculous. Now the Liberals understand, stealing New Democratic ideas.

However, we are not in 2015; we are in 2021. We are in the midst of the worst medical crisis that our nation has ever seen. ICU beds are being overrun and people are drying. The people dying are young, racialized workers who have to go to work day in, day out. I do not see anything in the budget that recognizes the need to support them, to get the resources or use the powers in the Emergency Act to work with the provinces.

Why is the government also cutting the funding for workers in the gig economy? They are the ones who are suffering.

[Petitions, April 20th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, you have clarified the rules regarding petitions. This is not a form of debate; it is just to present petitions. The member is using this as a platform, which is not within the rules.