House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 60% of the vote.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns September 15th, 2014
With regard to government procurement: what are the details of all contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to Ministers since April 1, 2006, (a) providing for each such contract (i) the start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work; and (b) providing, in the case of a contract for speechwriting, the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns September 15th, 2014
With regard to government real property management, for each contract for the appraisal of real property since January 1, 2006: what are the (i) file numbers, (ii) dates, (iii) location or description of the property?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns September 15th, 2014
With respect to government advertising, for each television advertisement which has been aired during National Hockey League playoff game broadcasts since January 1, 2006: what is the (a) identification number, name or ADV number; (b) number of times each advertisement has aired during such a broadcast, specifying the total number of times and the total length of time (seconds or minutes), broken down by year and by month for each advertisement; (c) total cost to air each advertisement, broken down by year and by month; (d) criteria used to select each of the advertisement placements; (e) media outlet used to air each advertisement, broken down by year and by month; and (f) the total amount spent per outlet, broken down by year and by month?
Citizenship and Immigration June 12th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that the 1977 act “actually cheapened Canadian citizenship.”
My family and I arrived in Canada, like many other people, under the program opération mon pays during that period.
Does the minister think that my family and I are traitors and citizens of convenience?
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 11th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Once again, and I have been saying this since yesterday, what we want to do is to work for the middle class. When we consider a budget bill introduced by the Conservative government and an NDP member talks to me about what the Liberals previously did, I do not spend my time on such arguments.
As I said, this budget contains a number of promising elements. However, I do not agree with the idea of adding a number of measures that make no sense, do not create jobs and do not favour the middle class. I think we must get down to essentials. Should we join forces to combat the Conservatives’ attitude or should I let the NDP select inappropriate targets instead?
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 11th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, first, let us start with the last point. The member mentioned FATCA and the information exchange with the Americans. He did say “information exchange”, but no provision is made for any exchange in the agreement that was signed. The Canada Revenue Agency will give the information of taxpayers who have dual citizenship to the IRS in the United States. That is not an information exchange. We do the work for the Americans. I should also mention to the honourable member that the Canada Revenue Agency already exchanges information with other countries.
Second, I understand why one would want to fight a certain number of crimes, whether it be cybercrime, drug trafficking or other crimes, given the advent of new technology. However, clause 28 is not the solution. When an auditor encounters a drug-trafficking situation, he transfers it to special investigations.
There is no need for that.
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 11th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak in the debate on Bill C-31 concerning the budget. We can say from the start that this budget will not go down in history, for a number of reasons.
First, there is nothing in this budget to help middle-class families overcome or improve difficult situations in their lives. Second, there are no possibility whatsoever of creating jobs. Ultimately, this budget does nothing to stimulate the Canadian economy. We are well aware that there will be an election in 2015. This budget is therefore a strategy that is being put forward.
An omnibus bill over 300 pages long that deals with a little of everything is a catch-all. Among the things it deals with are railway safety and the Champlain Bridge. There is a multitude of information in this bill, when we really do not have the time to debate each of its elements in depth.
I would say, however, that there are some positive points in this budget. For example, I could mention the program established for whistle-blowers, in spite of the fact that the government cannot tell us, for example, how much money that program is going to generate or how much it will cost. It also contains measures to raise the adoption tax credit and the credit for certain medical expenses, as well as lowering the GST on health services.
What I am going to focus on tonight is the government’s attitude toward the confidentiality of personal information. There are two places in this bill where Canadians’ privacy is attacked. To begin, my colleague has just talked about FATCA, and that is indeed the first element. The second element is the sharing of information between the Canada Revenue Agency and the police.
We will start with FATCA. We know that FATCA is an acronym that refers to an American law. An agreement that has been made with the Minister of Finance affects Canadians who are dual nationals, and that affects about a million people.
Under that agreement, Canadian banks will now give information about those people to the Canada Revenue Agency, and that agency will do the dirty work of transmitting the information to the IRS, the American counterpart of the Canada Revenue Agency. This is what was recently signed. We are truly appalled by it, because doing this kind of thing to assist the Americans is not appropriate.
The other element concerns the sharing of information with the police. Today, I put the question directly to the Minister of National Revenue, because the purpose of clause 28 of this bill is to allow any official of the Canada Revenue Agency to transmit personal and confidential information to any police force, without the taxpayers’ consent. This is a frontal attack on Canadian tax confidentiality. This clause violates the right to liberty. It is going to lead to unreasonable searches. That is why we must not go ahead with clause 28.
In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this point, in Jarvis and in Ling. Those decisions hold that once an audit becomes an investigation, in particular for tax fraud, the taxpayer’s rights as guaranteed by the charter come into play. Failure to caution the taxpayer about the possible use of the information obtained in a criminal proceeding is a violation of the rights guaranteed under section 7.
This violates the principles prohibiting self-incrimination.
I am wondering what the Conservatives hope to change with section 28. I spent almost 20 years at the Canada Revenue Agency. As a fellow chartered professional accountant, I understand these situations. The Income Tax Act clearly sets out the circumstances under which a government official cannot obtain information. I am talking specifically about subsection 241(1), which states:
Except as authorized by this section, no official...of a government entity shall...knowingly provide, or knowingly allow to be provided, to any person any taxpayer information...
It clearly states “except”, but under what circumstances? Subsection 241(3.1) stipulates that government officials can provide information if people are in danger. Subsection 241(3) stipulates that information can be provided when criminal activity is involved.
Right now, when Canada Revenue Agency auditors come across criminal information in the course of their duties, they have a duty to provide that information to special investigations through a liaison officer. That way, a clear distinction is made between the civil audit and the criminal investigation. Once the file has been sent to special investigations, investigators will meet with the taxpayer, if they decide to take the case.
However, they must first inform the taxpayer that he is under investigation since they have the authority to conduct searches. They have a lot of authority but they always require approval from a judge to exercise it. The result is that the auditors can impose civil penalties while the investigators can seek a conviction. These taxpayers could spend up to two years in prison.
To come back to the amendment to section 28, if a Canada Revenue Agency official gives information to the police and the police decides to use it to conduct a search and take things farther, can the police actually use that information if the taxpayer did not give his consent to the Canada Revenue Agency to share the information with the police? This would automatically compromise the evidence that the police could use to convict that person.
I am therefore wondering why the Conservatives want to go there. I do not understand. This is part of the Conservatives' philosophy. They have no interest in the privacy of Canadian taxpayers. Their philosophy is to move forward, regardless of the situation and without regard for people's privacy. That is not right. We need to put a stop to that. We must remove the amendment to section 28 from this bill because it puts at risk Canadian taxpayers who are in this type of situation.
Privacy June 11th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, clause 28 of the Conservatives' omnibus bill is designed to allow any public servant at the Canada Revenue Agency to share personal and confidential information with any police service, without taxpayers' consent. That infringes on the right to liberty and will lead to unreasonable searches.
The Supreme Court has already said that Canadians must not lose confidence in the tax system and that its credibility should not be undermined. Why, then, are the Conservatives putting Canadians at risk?
Business of Supply June 10th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I will be clear and straightforward, like the question that was put to me.
Perhaps the member could ask her leader why he accepted his bonus when he left the National Assembly of Quebec. Why would I not be entitled to it after sitting as a member of the National Assembly of Quebec for six years?
Business of Supply June 10th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.
As I said, the NDP wants to deal with the Liberals. It is looking at what we are doing. For us, the goal is clear and that is to work for the middle class. I do not want to waste my time analyzing the NDP's position because it is nonsense.
The motion was moved and we very much hope that the Conservative government will reconsider, just as the late Jim Flaherty wanted to in caucus. Unfortunately, we know what happened. All members of Parliament are mourning the passing of Mr. Flaherty.
The question is simple. Let us reject this income splitting approach because it does nothing to help the middle class. Instead, the most affluent Canadians will get richer.