Gerald Keddy

[Taxation, March 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the resources are in place. There are nearly 400 more tax auditors today than there were in the past and when we formed government.

If the member would look at economic action plan 2013, we committed to crack down on those who avoid paying their fair share of taxes and to ensure tax fairness for all Canadians. In order to implement that, we put nearly 400 more tax auditors in place. That is the government doing the job it was elected to do.

[Marine Mammal Regulations, March 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House and support this private member's bill. I have a few words of advice for the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

I am a little surprised, because every once in a while we get a private member's bill that every party in the House can support. Usually we take that opportunity to commend the member for bringing the bill forward, and we recognize the good and salient points in the piece of legislation. We look at it as an opportunity to reach across the aisle, instead of trying to kick someone in the teeth.

I have heard foolishness before, but this is just patent foolishness. Here is the issue. It is an issue that every side of the House can agree on, so let us find ways to agree instead of disagree.

I suspect that the hon. member is smarting a little bit. As a new member of Parliament, he misspoke. He suggested that the seal hunt should be ended and that the days of the seal hunt were over. There was not any talk about it being in the blood of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The language used was that it was time that we moved beyond it, that the seal hunt was a thing of the past. I know that he feels a little bad about that and is trying to make up for it, so we will forgive him for his remarks. However, I will not forgive him for failing to reach across the aisle and join hands on a subject we can agree on.

I was the chair of the fisheries committee for a couple of years. I sat on the fisheries committee, along with the parliamentary secretary and a number of other people in the chamber. Some very good work was done on that committee, and some very good work was done on the seal hunt. I got to be the chair at the time of the seal hunt report.

There are a couple of facts that have to be recognized. First of all, this is private members' legislation. It recommends doubling the distance for unlicensed observers. Most unlicensed observers are in vessels. They are not on the ice, they are in a vessel. The Farley Mowat attempted to ram sealers in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Had it been successful, it probably would have killed those sealers. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about risk of life and limb.

I would go a step further and recommend to the hon. member for West Nova, who brought this bill forward, and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that we should look at the distance that we allow licensed observers to go. Quite frankly, there should be no licensed observers outside of the international group of veterinarians who are already on the ice during every single hunt.

This is the most closely managed large animal hunt in the world. We have RCMP officers on the ice. We have Fisheries and Oceans Canada officers on the ice. We have firearms folks on the ice. We have people from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency out there, making sure that the sealers have taken their courses on how to identify that the animal has been killed properly and how to skin the animal. We have the Coast Guard. We have the air force out there, monitoring the hunt. This is the most closely monitored large animal hunt in the world.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we should allow anyone who is not a registered veterinarian closer than 300 metres or 400 metres. Over 90% of the seals are shot. Fewer than than 10% are killed with a hakapik. They are shot with .222s and .223s. Those firearms will easily fire that bullet for 400 metres or 500 metres over the ice. That is the distance that people should be pushed back. If someone is a veterinarian who knows what is going on and how the animal is dying, whether it has been killed properly or not, and can identify that, he or she has a special license and moves up closer. That would save a lot of the trouble here.

I have pictures that were sent to me from John Levy, coming in off Georges Bank. He is 120 miles offshore. He is longlining halibut, and he is bringing his longline in with halibut after halibut. These are 30- and 40-pound fish, some of them. The skin has been raked off and the fat has been eaten, and the fish has been destroyed by grey seals.

I worked off Sable Island for nearly a decade during the 1980s. In 1980, when we flew over Sable Island we could count the seals on the spit. There were harp seals on the southeastern spit, and I think it was the southeast and northwestern spit. There were grey seals on the other spit. We could literally count them.

Today, some 30 years later, there are 300,000 grey seals. The males weigh up to 600 pounds.

What do the people who are against the seal hunt think those animals live on? What do they think the seals eat? They are not vegetarians, I can assure members. They eat fish.

It is all about balance. We do not want to kill the last seal, absolutely not. However, there is a sustainable hunt here that could be extremely lucrative. These animals are full of fat and omega-3 oil. That oil is valuable. Whether we can harvest the meat is something to be determined in the future, beyond for local consumption. The oil alone deserves to be harvested. It is healthy oil. It is good for people. It is good for everyone.

There are a couple of other points I want to make here. One of them was mentioned by other speakers and that is misleading information. The European Union, which should be our friend, has listened to misleading information. I was privileged to go with the fish committee to the European Parliament. We presented to the committee on the environment in the European Parliament on the sustainability of the seal hunt.

It was a very acrimonious meeting. We acted like professionals, we presented our evidence, but we did not get a fair hearing. Somehow, we have to move beyond that.

The other thing that all governments need to do, the provincial governments as well, is lobby the Europeans. These decisions are made in the Parliament of Europe today. They are not made in the individual member states. We have to have a presence, and we have to have a lobbying effort in the European Parliament if we are going to move ahead with any changes to the rules or any changes to the regulations on the seal hunt.

We could do it unilaterally, but we want to have their support when it happens, if we can. If we cannot, then I say we should move ahead with it.

I will give an example of how many seals there are. In the 1970s or 1980s, people sailing off the south shore of Nova Scotia might see a seal. They would probably see a whale and they would definitely see blackfish, but they might see a seal.

Three years ago, I was out in Mahone Bay and every rock had a seal on it and there were two more in the water waiting to get on that rock when the first seal got off. They are everywhere. We have to be able to bring them under control, and we have to do that in a reasonable, sustainable, and responsible manner.

We can do that if we reach across the aisle and do not treat this as a political football. This is an important piece of legislation from a member of Parliament who represents a huge piece of the fishery in Canada. It is timely and it is well meant. If we apply this, it will help to control the seal industry and help our fishery develop to the potential it has.

[The Pictou Advocate, March 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today I was shocked to learn that The Pictou Advocate newspaper, in Pictou, Nova Scotia, recently ran an editorial cartoon featuring the Nazi flag flying over Canada's Parliament.

It was here in this Parliament that members before us sent our soldiers to fight darkness and evil. Our men and women bravely fought for Canada in the Second World War, defending our liberty, freedom, and values. It was here that members from all parties voted to honour the memory of lives so viciously taken by Nazi brutality, sending a strong message that human rights, the rule of law, and human decency will always prevail, and that never again would we allow such atrocities to take place.

The crass and casual use of the Nazi flag flying over Canada's cradle of democracy is not only an insult to our men and women in uniform, it belittles the memory of the victims and the survivors who suffered at the hands of Nazi dictators. We condemn this shameful and cowardly act, and call on The Pictou Advocate to immediately retract the hurtful image and apologize.

[Petitions, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the other two petitions deal with rural mail delivery. The petitioners ask that rural mail delivery continue in Nova Scotia.

[Petitions, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions.

The first petition is from a group of folks in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's and from people across Nova Scotia requesting that the Government of Canada establish rules so that under no circumstances shall an individual or group of individuals' right to equal treatment based on gender, something they are born with, be compromised by another individual or group of individuals' interpretation of a religion, a personal choice, and that no public funds be provided to any facility that provides for gender-based discrimination.

This petition came about when a Muslim man joined a co-ed martial arts class and demanded that the participants be separated into men's and women's groups, based on his interpretation of religion.

[Privilege, March 3rd, 2014]

I said if you lie because you have the protection of the House, it is still a lie. You want me to stand. I am standing.

[Privilege, March 3rd, 2014]

A lie is a lie, Charlie. It does not matter how you say it. A lie is a lie. What are you talking about? If you lie because you have the protection of the House, it is still a lie.

[National Lyme Disease Strategy Act, March 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour for me to rise today to participate in this debate on Bill C-442, an act respecting a National Lyme Disease Strategy. I would like to begin by commending the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her stewardship of this important bill, and I would like to acknowledge its support by many members in the House.

The hon. member mentioned in her comments that many of us, myself included, live in areas where the blacklegged tick, or deer tick, is endemic. In addition, many of us, myself included, have constituents who have contracted Lyme disease at some point.

This is an endemic disease. It is a Canada-wide disease, and it is a disease that is spreading. For those reasons, we need a national strategy. The support for this bill underscores the need to work together and to address this emerging infectious disease in order to minimize the risk for Canadians.

Across the country, the number of reported cases of Lyme disease has increased significantly in the last decade. In fact, the actual number of cases in Canada is estimated to be up to three times higher than reported because many Canadians may not seek a full diagnosis and, quite frankly, many medical professionals do not know how to diagnose Lyme disease.

To underscore that point, as the hon. member would know, Lyme disease was first reported in Lyme, Connecticut, in 1975 or 1974. Here we are, 39 years later, with Lyme disease endemic throughout New England and now it has spread into Canada, following the white-tailed deer, of course, and we still do not have a national strategy for Lyme disease. That underscores the need for the important discussion we are having in the House of Commons today.

This has led to a growing recognition among governments, health practitioners, and stakeholders that work needs to be done to address this emerging infectious disease. Support for this bill also highlights the need to better leverage efforts at the federal level and across jurisdictions in Lyme disease surveillance and research.

Our government has already established improved surveillance specifically aimed at Lyme disease, and welcomes the sponsor's efforts to bring additional attention to this important issue.

The proposed bill highlights the need for continued action by governments, stakeholders, and the public health and medical communities to improve the understanding and awareness of risk factors, prevention, and treatment options. The objectives of this bill are laudable, and in fact align with the many activities already being undertaken by our government. Canadians should be reassured that the government has not been standing still.

We are already making significant progress under the leadership of the Public Health Agency of Canada. We are working with provincial and territorial health authorities and other partners in informing Canadians of the health risks from contracting Lyme disease. We also continue to help protect Canadians against Lyme disease through improved surveillance, by conducting research, by providing factual and evidence-based information to Canadians, and by providing support for laboratory diagnosis. Since 2006, our government has invested $4.6 million through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to specifically fund research on Lyme disease and to disseminate the latest findings and knowledge to the scientific community.

These efforts are a central component of the Public Health Agency of Canada's approach to infectious diseases in Canada. More specifically, our approach to Lyme disease takes important action to reduce the disease's impact.

We do this by enhancing surveillance, prevention, and control; research and diagnosis; and engagement, education, and awareness. These three areas are consistent with the key elements of the bill, and our approach is already delivering results. However, as mentioned before, we are also prepared to do more, and in a collaborative fashion, to further address this emerging infectious disease.

That is why I want to signal to the House today that the government supports the intent of Bill C-442 and that we will be proposing practical amendments to ensure that the vision and values expressed in the bill can be realized and provide maximum benefit to the Canadian people.

The bill addresses an important issue, but it needs to be refined to remain consistent with the jurisdictional roles and accountabilities of Canada's federal system of government. In keeping with the spirit of the bill, we must be mindful of our federal role and respect jurisdictional accountabilities.

As we know, the provision of health care services in Canada falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. It is the provinces and territories that establish and monitor standards of care for health providers. It is also the purview of relevant medical colleges to define clinical care guidelines.

It is not the federal role to tell medical professionals how to practise. The proper role for the federal government in this area is to ensure that best practices are being shared across all jurisdictions, so that Canadians can be reassured that treatments are guided by the best scientific evidence.

In a similar vein, dictating to provinces and territories how and where to allocate their spending is contrary to our government's approach to fiscal federalism. However, it is within our federal role to facilitate collaboration across jurisdictions and with stakeholders to monitor and address the challenges posed by Lyme disease.

We are doing precisely that through our involvement in the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network and our collaborative work with stakeholders such as the College of Family Physicians of Canada and patient advocacy groups.

For example, the Public Health Agency of Canada is already working with the College of Family Physicians of Canada to engage health professionals on Lyme disease by increasing awareness among health care providers to enable them to recognize, diagnose, and treat the disease in its early stages.

Suffice it to say, while we concur with the bill's goals and objectives, it would need to be amended to reflect these jurisdictional realities, which is something that the hon. member has already mentioned she is supportive of.

This government is looking forward to working with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and will propose amendments in these areas to ensure that the bill is consistent with the provinces' and territories' primary role in delivering health care.

Early on in my speech, I mentioned that 39 years ago, Lyme disease was first diagnosed in Lyme, Connecticut. It took 39 years to get to this stage.

I have heard some members in this place—as the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has already alluded—question whether they would support this piece of proposed legislation. Some members say that Lyme disease is not prevalent in their area or that it is not endemic in their area.

I would suggest to these members that they had better take a look at whether they have white-tailed deer in their area. The blacklegged tick, better known in my part of the world as the deer tick, came to North America with the white-tailed deer. It has spread very successfully in most jurisdictions of North America.

As deer become more urban, or perhaps as humans become more rural, more white-tailed deer are moving into what were once rural areas, which are now urban areas. Therefore, this disease is only going to get worse, and it has been wildly underreported. There are a number of cases we are still trying to diagnose that I suspect will end up being Lyme disease or some variant of Lyme disease.

In closing, I commend the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very important and extremely timely work on this file. I have a number of constituents in South Shore—St. Margaret's in Nova Scotia who are watching this file as it proceeds forward. These folks either have contracted Lyme disease themselves or have family members who have contracted Lyme disease.

This is a terrible, insidious disease that is very difficult to diagnose. Therefore, this is very timely legislation.

[Taxation, February 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that taxpayer money is spent where it will do the most good, and we are working to ensure that the government's programs are efficient and effective and achieving the expected results for Canadians.

[Tax Evasion, February 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to oppose private member's Motion No. 485 and to take this opportunity to highlight some of the most significant steps our government has taken to tackle the growing problem of international tax evasion and aggressive international tax avoidance, a problem that the previous Liberal government completely ignored.

If my hon. colleagues had only taken a moment to listen to the member for Winnipeg South Centre, they would have heard a number of their questions answered.

This is an extremely complex issue. Therefore, let me begin by stating the obvious, that Canada's tax system is based on the premise of self-assessment and voluntary compliance. Canadian taxpayers, individuals, corporations, and trusts, are required by law to file their fax returns on time and to pay whatever taxes they owe in full. To comply with Canada's tax laws, Canadians who invest abroad must report their worldwide income and pay the correct amount of tax on those earnings. The majority of them do.

It does a disservice, quite frankly, for opposition members to state that somehow everyone with a foreign bank account is not paying tax or is deliberately trying to hide tax. Indeed, the vast majority of Canadian taxpayers are honest, law-abiding citizens. They file their tax returns, report their income, and pay whatever taxes they owe as required by law. When these honest Canadians hear about those who attempt to evade or avoid their tax obligations, particularly where the potential loss of revenue is significant, they are justly outraged. They want to know, and indeed deserve to know, what their government is doing about it.

Let me assure members of the House that our government takes the abuse of Canada's tax laws very seriously. Tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, whether domestic or international, places an unfair burden on law-abiding taxpayers and businesses. They erode public trust in the tax system and jeopardize the integrity of Canada's tax base. I believe everyone in the House would agree with those words.

I understand the intentions of the member of Parliament for Rivière-du-Nord in proposing a motion to study Canadian tax losses due to international tax evasion and the use of tax havens. However, I would argue that attempting to measure the so-called tax gap is not the most effective solution to this complex global problem. I think the member opposite knows this as well.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, has reported that “Given the widely varying types of non-compliance behaviours that comprise the overall tax gap, it will be apparent that measuring its overall size is a difficult, costly and (some would say) inevitably quite an imprecise undertaking.”

Those are not the government's words. Those are the OECD's words.

For the sake of clarity, let me explain that the tax gap is the difference between the tax revenues the government actually receives in a year and the tax revenues it would receive if all taxpayers respected their tax obligations under the various acts and regulations administered by the Canada Revenue Agency.

Here comes the rub. Estimating the income that is deliberately hidden in secret offshore investments is virtually impossible with even a minimal degree of accuracy or reliability. By their very nature, tax evasion and tax avoidance are difficult to quantify since they involve people or entities deliberately and aggressively hiding money from the government.

Therefore, like the vast majority of OECD countries around the world, Canada does not estimate the amount of revenue lost to international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. However, to that point, I must stress that our government takes the issue of international tax non-compliance extremely seriously and it is by no means turning a blind eye to the problem. One of my colleagues has already summarized the important measures that our government introduced in economic action plan 2013 to tackle international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

These new measures and tools will strengthen the Canada Revenue Agency's ability to identify and audit abusive tax schemes and arrangements that use offshore jurisdictions to hide assets and income.

On January 15, the hon. Minister of National Revenue announced the launch of the new offshore tax informant program, which is one of the economic action plan measures I just mentioned.

For the first time, the Canada Revenue Agency is in a position to financially reward individuals when they provide information that leads to the assessment and collection of additional federal taxes in cases of major international tax non-compliance. Informants are now able to contact the Canada Revenue Agency through a toll-free number that is accessible throughout North America and a local number that can be reached from anywhere in the world.

After considering the information provided, and there is a very clear protocol, the Canada Revenue Agency may enter into a contract with the informant if the federal tax owing, excluding interest and penalties, is more than $100,000 and all other program requirements are met.

Of course, no payment would be made to anyone already convicted of tax evasion in relation to the information provided. Our government will not reward tax cheats from turning on one another.

Regardless of whether the information ultimately results in a payment under the program, the Canada Revenue Agency can use the information provided to carry out its mandate to ensure compliance with Canada's tax laws. Offering a reward for information about major cases of international tax non-compliance would both encourage those with information to come forward and discourage Canadians from breaking the law in the first place.

The new offshore tax informant program is not the only way the Canada Revenue Agency obtains information about tax non-compliance. The agency already has an informant leads program in place that accepts information about all forms of tax non-compliance, although it does not pay informants for such information. The informant leads program can be used to report cases of international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance that fall below the $100,000 threshold that is set for the offshore tax informant program.

Taxpayers with previously undisclosed income may also avail themselves of the Canada Revenue Agency's voluntary disclosures program. Should Canadians choose to rectify their tax affairs through voluntary disclosure, they may be able to avoid penalties and prosecution for tax evasion and only have to pay the taxes they owe, plus interest.

Taxpayers file many different types of disclosures in relation to income and property located outside of Canada. For example, CRA has received a significant number of disclosures in relation to foreign asset reporting information and investment income located offshore. To be eligible for the voluntary disclosures program, taxpayers must come forward and file a valid disclosure before they become aware of any compliance action that CRA begins against them.

We encourage all Canadians with unreported or underreported income to avail themselves of the voluntary disclosures program, pay their taxes upfront, or otherwise the financial penalties for being caught cheating on their taxes could be dire.

While our government will not support Motion No. 485, Canadians can rest assured that we are taking strong action to protect the integrity and fairness of Canada's tax system. We believe that following up on information and intelligence provided by informants is one of many effective solutions to addressing the complex issue of international tax non-compliance.

This is more effective than attempting to substantiate some elusive “tax gap” that only exists because someone is deliberately and very aggressively, and usually with a fair amount of finesse, hiding income offshore. That so-called “tax gap” is almost impossible to quantify. The OECD says that it is impossible to quantify, and we believe it. However, that does not take the burden off government to aggressively follow up on international tax evasion and international tax cheats. It actually increases the burden on government to aggressively seek out people who are not paying their income tax or who are hiding their money offshore.

As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg South Centre said earlier, there are a number of tools in the government's toolbox. We are using every single one of them to aggressively search out these tax cheats and make sure they are in compliance. If not, we will use the force of the law to force them into compliance.