Guy Caron

[The Environment, May 17th, 2019]

Let us recap, Mr. Speaker. Shortly after the 2015 election, the Liberals went to Paris on a PR junket, but they changed their tune as soon as they got back to Canada.

They kept the Conservatives' inadequate targets, which they will not even meet. Sure, they put a price on carbon, but the biggest GHG emitters are exempt. They bought a pipeline for $4.5 billion. Plus, this year they will hand over $3 billion in various subsidies to the oil and gas industry.

Then they had the nerve to vote against our motion calling for real action and went ahead with their own motion, which amounts to little more than lip service.

When will they stop taking Canadians for fools?

[Fairness for All Canadian Taxpayers Act, May 16th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-243. Although the bill was introduced here, in the House, it is actually a Senate initiative sponsored by Senator Percy Downe, for whom I have a great deal of respect. Back when I was the NDP finance critic, I had the pleasure of working with him on tax evasion issues. I know this issue is really important to him.

In the previous Parliament, the Standing Committee on Finance studied the tax gap, which is the difference between what the government does collect and what it should collect. That is money the government misses out on because of tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance, the use of tax havens and so on.

I remember when the committee was debating it, we had witnesses from all over the world, including the United States, Great Britain and various European OECD countries, as well as Canadian experts. We heard from experts on taxation, banking and various organizations.

It became apparent that we needed to measure the tax gap. However, at the time, the Conservative government and the Conservative members of the committee had no interest in moving forward. They told us that it was impossible, that it would require too much work, and that any data we might gain from the whole exercise would not justify the resources required to see it through. I do not think that was true, and the Liberals who were on the committee at the time agreed.

However, as soon as they took office, the Liberals became reluctant to get the Canada Revenue Agency to be transparent and to start measuring the tax gap. Yes, they ended up doing it. Yes, the CRA is now doing some hasty calculations to try to tell us how much tax revenue is likely being lost.

However, most stakeholders do not believe the amount is accurate. As part of a review of all tax measures, the CRA claimed that the government is currently losing about $7 billion or $8 billion in tax revenue. Most tax fairness organizations do not believe that. The Conference Board of Canada even conducted a study on measuring the tax gap, which found that it may actually be closer to $45 billion or $47 billion, if we rely mainly on how much tax revenue is currently being lost by the United States, which I would remind members has a lot more resources to deal with this issue than the CRA does.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer now has the authorization, power and desire to measure the tax gap. For two years, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his office were asking for authorization to proceed with an accurate measurement of the tax gap. For two years, the Liberal government refused to give them the information they needed. For two years, the Parliamentary Budget Officer did not have the information needed to proceed with this important study, a matter on which the CRA has no credibility, and yet, the government claimed the whole time to support the office.

Here is why I believe the CRA has no credibility. During the entire time that I had to deal with the agency, all I saw was a lack of transparency. Not only did I find that they were unwilling to provide information, but I also observed that they were withholding it.

Not that long ago, at the beginning of this Parliament, I sat on the Standing Committee on Finance. Among other things, we studied the whole scheme involving KPMG and the Isle of Man. After a handful of committee meetings, we were no longer allowed to examine the processes that KPMG had been involved in.

When CRA representatives testified before the committee, they gave every possible excuse for not providing the information. They told us that it would breach confidentiality, that privacy could be at risk and that it could not give us information that KPMG deemed to be privileged. There was every reason to deny us the information, but none of them were valid.

We could have done what the U.S. usually does, which, in the case of KPMG, was to use the committee's authority to issue subpoenas requesting that KPMG officials testify and compelling them to do so.

Both the Canada Revenue Agency and its minister had a hand in that.

The minister does not have much credibility. Throughout this Parliament, she repeatedly told us that the government and the Canada Revenue Agency had taken steps, but that turns out not to be the case.

For example, the minister repeatedly said that the government invested $1 billion to fight tax evasion and had recovered $25 billion, but that turned out not to be true. The government did not recover $25 billion; it hoped to recover $25 billion. As it turns out, “hope to recover” is exactly right because the government is far from hitting that target at the moment. Then the minister said the government really had taken the necessary measures and that CRA had hired 1,300 new auditors. Well, we did the math, and so did the media, and we figured out that CRA hired 192 new auditors, not 1,300.

The Canada Revenue Agency told us that it answers 90% of all calls within two minutes. The Auditor General begged to differ. The truth is that 34% of all callers actually get someone on the line, and a third of all callers are given incorrect information.

It is very hard to believe everything coming out of the Canada Revenue Agency. It is very hard to lend them credibility. That is why we need an independent study. I do not believe the numbers that the Canada Revenue Agency came up with in the course of its study of the so-called tax gap. I would have more confidence in the numbers from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, if he has access to the data that should be made accessible to him through this bill.

Percy Downe, the senator who introduced the bill, has a great deal of credibility in the area. He made this his pet issue and did not make a big spectacle out of it. He just wants to get to the bottom of this. He realizes that here in Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency is a problem.

The CRA's approach to collecting tax revenue across the country is problematic. The senator recognizes, as we do, that the CRA is acting arbitrarily. It changes its approach to collecting personal income tax depending on the individual's level of wealth. I am not making that up. It was in the Auditor General's 2018 report, which notes a lack of consistency in the CRA's collection processes.

Two different taxpayers will be treated in two different ways. That is not professional. It is unfair and perpetuates the perception that the CRA and the Government of Canada treat taxpayers differently based on their wealth or status.

This is a major problem because it indicates that this is a two-tiered system. In this system, the government will try to reach an out-of-court settlement with people who have the means to defend themselves. That is actually what we have seen. The government tries to resolve the situation by closing the file, because it will be too expensive to recover money from people who have the means to defend themselves. However, in the case of those who cannot defend themselves, the government takes quick action to recover the money.

We must standardize the way the agency does things and, above all, take away the Canada Revenue Agency's authority to assess the gap, because it will likely not do a very credible job. We must routinely ask the government to do its job, to exercise due diligence and to provide on a regular and ongoing basis the information requested by the Parliamentary Budget Officer to evaluate the tax gap.

That is why I am proud to support this bill.

[Trois-Pistoles French Immersion School, May 16th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, one of the proudest accomplishments of Trois-Pistoles and Les Basques is without a doubt the Trois-Pistoles French Immersion School. It is celebrating its 87th year of operation, making it the oldest immersion school in North America.

Every summer the principal, André Beaudin, and his team welcome approximately 600 young English speakers from across the country, who are housed by 100 or so host families, for an unforgettable experience.

When they arrive and they are spoken to in French, the kids often look like deer in the headlights, according to the Nicholas Moroz, president of the CAFEL, but they emerge from the experience with greater confidence in themselves and their abilities, not to mention a host of new memories.

Whenever I can, I have the pleasure of welcoming them when they arrive and seeing them off when they leave every year. This time, it will be bittersweet, because André is retiring this summer, after 10 years as principal of the school. His generosity of spirit and his sense of humour are equally legendary, and we are sorry to see him go.

His successor, Kathy Asari, will be taking over soon. She will have some seriously big shoes to fill.

Thank you, André, for all that you have done. Enjoy your well-deserved retirement.

[Petitions, May 15th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity to table this petition, which was signed primarily by Quebeckers, in particular those living on the North Shore, and calls on the Government of Canada to provide universal access to employment insurance.

We know that approximately 38% of the people who pay into the EI fund are eligible for benefits. When we look at the statistics by gender, the situation is even worse because only 35% of unemployed women who pay into EI are eligible for benefits compared to 52% of unemployed men.

The petition calls for the enhancement of the current employment insurance system to ensure universal access to it by lowering the eligibility threshold to 350 hours or 13 weeks, establishing a minimum threshold of 35 weeks of benefits and increasing the benefit rate to 70% of salary based on the best 12 weeks of salary.

Those are some of the measures being proposed. I am pleased to table this petition.

[Foreign Affairs, May 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Conservative Party announced that he would move the Canadian embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem if he became Prime Minister. Not only would this policy be irresponsible, but it would also violate international law and United Nations Security Council resolutions. Most especially, it would make no sense for anyone who wants peace in the region. The Conservatives seem to have a simple plan to copy Donald Trump's foreign policy, which is particularly troubling for stability in the Middle East.

Will the Liberals commit to condemning this plan, knowing that East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian territory?

[Petitions, May 7th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed mainly by people from Quebec City, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and eastern Quebec who are calling for universal access to employment insurance. As members know, only 35.2% of unemployed women are eligible for regular EI benefits, compared to 52% of unemployed men.

The petitioners are calling on the government to ensure universal access to employment insurance by lowering the eligibility threshold to 350 hours or 13 weeks, establishing a minimum threshold of 35 weeks of benefits, and increasing the benefit rate to 70% of salary based on the best 12 weeks of salary. The petition also proposes other measures. I am pleased to table it in the House.

[Criminal Records Act, May 6th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit my earlier question because I did not get a clear answer.

Some of the U.S. states that decided to legalize cannabis expunged criminal records. It is very important to make the distinction between this process and a simple pardon.

If you are crossing the border and are asked if you have ever been convicted of an offence such as simple possession of cannabis, you must answer yes, even if you have been pardoned. This is not the case, however, when the record is expunged. The United States decided to use expungement, completely erasing the record, which makes life so much easier for people convicted of simple possession who want to travel.

Once again, I am trying to understand why the government is not doing what the U.S. did and making life easier for people convicted of an offence that no longer exists and that makes things very difficult when they want to travel or find a job?

[Criminal Records Act, May 6th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for talking about the NDP's position.

It seems to me the Liberals do not realize they can take “yes” for an answer. We voted in favour of Bill C-45. Anyway, let's get back to the difference between a pardon and an expungement.

As my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly mentioned in his speech, most of the U.S. states that legalized cannabis have expunged simple possession offences from criminal records, and the sky has not fallen as a result. We know that expungement has brought relief to individuals and unclogged the system. As our neighbours to the south have shown, it costs society nothing.

I would like to know why my colleague supports this bill's proposal to pardon an offence, leaving criminal records intact, rather than the record expungement approach, which most U.S. states have taken.

[Small Business, May 6th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the owners of small businesses and family farms who want to sell their business to their children are still paying a lot more in taxes than those who want to sell to strangers. That is unfair and completely ridiculous.

The bill I introduced in February 2017 sought to remedy that situation, but the Minister of Finance convinced the Liberals to vote against it by promising he would introduce such a measure in a future budget. Budget 2019 was his third and last chance to do just that, but, for the third time, the finance minister refused to do it. It does not make any sense to punish those who want to keep their business in the family.

Why is the Minister of Finance picking on those families?

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2019]

Madam Speaker, everything he said at the start is totally false.

As I said in my speech, the Conservatives made a few requests for an emergency debate. Debates were requested several times as soon as this whole thing started. My colleague spoke about this situation in committee, where members asked not only that the minister appear, but that we hold a meaningful and full debate on the canola issue. That request was initially denied and at the end of the day, two meetings were granted. What he said at the beginning was false.

We have another problem right now. The canola issue is a major problem, but it is just one aspect of Canada's current diplomatic crisis with China. Since December, and more specifically since January, the government has been improvising a lot in this extremely important relationship that we have with this world giant. Three months into this crisis and we are nowhere near a resolution. In fact it looks like things might escalate with reprisals targeting not only Canadian canola farmers, but possibly pork and soya producers, as well.

All we want to do is to condemn the Liberals' obviously improvised approach to Canada's relationship with China. That is why we will be supporting the Conservative motion.