Guy Caron

[Canada Revenue Agency, October 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, none of that answers my main question on the problem of accountability and transparency at the Canada Revenue Agency.

For example, I want to relay a conversation that took place at the Standing Committee on Finance between the Minister of National Revenue and a senior official. That conversation was about a letter that had been signed by another official at the CRA. The letter was in fact an offer of amnesty to taxpayers who had been caught in the KPMG scheme on the Isle of Man.

We asked the minister whether the letter was genuine. She said that she could not confirm its authenticity. We asked whether she had looked into whether it was genuine. She said she could not comment on the authenticity of the letter. I asked her whether it was true that 21 taxpayers had already signed that letter. She said she could not comment on the authenticity of the letter. When we asked her the question again, she referred the question to the official who was there with her, Mr. Gallivan. He said that 16 people had signed the letter. That leads us to believe that 16 people signed a letter for which the minister cannot confirm—

[Canada Revenue Agency, October 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the issue I want to debate here this evening has to do with a question I asked the Minister of National Revenue in the House on September 26 regarding the Panama Papers.

The matter of the Panama Papers, like that of tax evasion and tax havens, should be a primary concern for the Canadian government. Unfortunately, in this case, as was the case with past leaked documents concerning banking institutions in Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and, with respect to KPMG, the Isle of Man, the federal government appears to have very little interest in getting to the bottom of these matters. Of course, the Liberals claim otherwise, saying that they are making investments. At the end of the day, however, their efforts are completely ineffective because they are not addressing the underlying issues.

I recognize that the current Liberal government is not to blame for this problem. In fact, this problem has been perpetuated by the various successive governments we have had over the past several years.

The Panama Papers are problematic because, as everyone knows, the government has information on the taxpayers who used the firm Mossack Fonseca and who used shadow companies, not systematically but in many cases, to get out of paying taxes here in Canada.

The government, like other governments before it, does not seem to be in much of a hurry to investigate all this or report on investigations it has completed.

This reminds me a lot of the KPMG and Isle of Man situation, which was even worse, in my opinion. In that case, as in the case of the Panama Papers, the government said it exposed KPMG's scheme. It also said that it went to great lengths to investigate.

Thanks to the work of journalists at Radio-Canada and CBC, we learned that what actually happened was that the Canada Revenue Agency offered amnesty to those who were caught bending the rules, and as a result they would have to pay only the taxes they owed anyway, without penalty or interest.

When middle-class taxpayers make a technical mistake, which is often unintentional, and are flagged by the Canada Revenue Agency, I can assure the House that they are asked to pay not just the amount owing, but interest as well. In some cases, that can be double or triple the original amount.

However, wealthy Canadians who voluntarily used a tax scheme, face no consequences, are told not to do it again, and just to repay the money originally owing. In my opinion, the fact that the government does not take this situation seriously is truly unfortunate. Although the government says that it is taking action, there is no evidence of that. There is no way we can see any action.

The government is also not tackling other problems at the Canada Revenue Agency, namely transparency and accountability. It is impossible to obtain any information from this agency because it hides behind privacy issues. This may sometimes be legitimate, but in many cases it is an excuse. The agency hides behind various excuses to avoid being accountable for its activities to the Parliament of Canada. I witnessed this several times at meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like the government to expand on the answer given by the minister, who did not really say much, about what the government is doing in the case of the Panama Papers.

[National Seal Products Day Act, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as the New Democratic Party's critic for fisheries, oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard critic, as well as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, I rise in the House to announce that I will support Bill S-208, which would designate May 20 as national seal products day.

As I am sure other speakers will point out, this is a symbolic day. It is symbolic because it is also the date the European Union has designated as European Maritime Day. The two are closely related because the day we want to promote is essentially the flip side of the one the European Union celebrates. The European Union is deeply unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of commercial seal products.

Our political party has long supported a commercial seal harvest, as long as it is humane and free of cruelty. A large part of the problem with how Europeans perceive the seal hunt is that it dates back to the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Major campaigns were organized in those days to denounce how seals, and especially white coats, were hunted. Many people will vividly recall some of the images circulated by a number of environmental groups and animal welfare groups. This was not necessarily groundless, for there were in fact some aspects that meant that the seal hunt was not being properly monitored, which led to some abusive practices. However, that is no longer the case today.

We have learned a great deal since then, and the seal hunt is an absolutely essential commercial activity. As my colleague from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame pointed out in his speech, we need to talk about this from a cultural perspective. A large portion of the subsistence incomes, and now the commercial revenues, of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the Magdalen Islands comes from the seal hunt. This hunt takes place off those two coasts, in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in Canada's Inuit regions, including Nunavut, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and the Inuvialuit region. In addition, the killing of white coats has been outlawed since 1987, so that is no longer a problem.

It is extremely unfortunate that the European Union has taken this position, and I am pleased that Senator Hervieux-Payette has brought this bill forward so it can, in some way, lead the European Union to review this issue.

An embargo has been in place since 2014. I get the impression that there is a type of pervasive protectionism going on and that is really too bad. This decision is driven more by politics and far less by protecting the environment or the animals. According to European Union's definition, seal-derived products are authorized provided they are derived from traditional forms of hunting practised by the Inuit communities or other indigenous communities for purposes of subsistence, or derived from forms of hunting practised solely for the sustainable and not-for-profit management of marine resources. Small quantities can be imported for personal use.

Why are these restrictions imposed on seal hunting? There are no such restrictions for other types of slaughter that do not necessarily involve livestock. I am thinking about deer hunting or moose hunting, or even what we in Quebec commonly refer to as wild game meat. This meat is no longer just the product of a hunt. Commercial zones have been established to market this meat. No one is talking about excluding that meat from the export market, but people are still talking about banning the export of seal-derived products. That is a double standard that the European Union has never successfully explained or justified.

The NDP believes that the first nations, Inuit peoples, and other groups, especially those who have traditionally relied on the hunt for their livelihood, have a right to continue hunting, whether as a tradition or a commercial enterprise. The seal hunt is a way of life and an essential source of food and income for the Inuit peoples and thousands of Canadian families in coastal communities.

In Nunavut alone, the seal hunt yields between four million and six million food products every year. Moreover, before the European Union ban, revenue generated by the sale of seal pelts amounted to as much as $1 million annually.

Seals are hunted not just for their pelts, but also for meat, oil, and derived health products. In addition, there is an emerging market for the oil, now that scientific studies have found it to be very rich in omega-3 fatty acids. This is very interesting from a scientific perspective.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, 5,000 to 6,000 people, representing 1% of the total population of the province and 2% of the labour force, earn income from the seal hunt. Therefore, this activity is an extremely important part of the economy.

However, there is also the issue of controlling the seal population, which is necessary to ensure the balance of the marine ecosystem, especially as it relates to the cod population. I mentioned this in the question I posed to my colleague from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

In 30 years, the harp seal population has tripled. Today there are between eight million and nine million harp seals, which is the most hunted species. According to forecasts for 2030, this population will almost double and reach between 10 million and 16 million individuals. The grey seal population has increased from 10,000 to half a million in 50 years. This indicates the importance of a traditional and commercial hunt, and one that also considers the importance of protecting ecological balance.

This view is reinforced by a very recent study, from January 2015, which was conducted by researchers from Fisheries and Oceans Canada over a period of three years. These researchers conclusively demonstrated that there is a direct link between seal herd growth and the increased mortality rate of cod in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The lack of cod recovery in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence appears to be due to high mortality among larger cod. This study also showed that predation by grey seals may account for up to 50% of the mortality of the cod.

We know that cod is an extremely important resource for fishers and the economic future of these regions. We know the difficulties that the moratorium on cod fishing in some regions off the coast of Newfoundland has caused. What is more, it has been very difficult to significantly increase cod stocks, particularly because of the growing seal population, so population control is necessary.

For a long time, the NDP has been in favour of a truly sustainable Canada and the protection of the Canadian Species at Risk Act. We want to strengthen that legislation and we are fighting for stricter animal cruelty laws. That is why many of us are going to support the Liberal member's bill to combat animal cruelty.

However, it is clear that the seal hunt is well regulated in order to ensure that it is sustainable and humane, for traditional, economic, and commercial reasons, as well as for reasons related to population control and ecosystem sustainability.

That is why I am pleased to personally support Senator Hervieux-Payette's bill, which was introduced here in the House of Commons by the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. The seal hunt must be preserved because it is extremely important to Quebec, in particular the Magdalen Islands, to Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the entire country.

[National Seal Products Day Act, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. I was happy to hear his speech, which clearly showed how passionate he is about this extremely important issue.

I wonder if he would care to comment on one aspect he did not mention in his speech: harp and grey seal population control with respect to cod stocks. In the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, the cod stock is taking a long time to recover. According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, cod recovery is slow because of the expanding grey seal population, which has grown from about 10,000 to nearly a million in 50 years.

Both cultural and economic issues are in play here, but the fishery is also a factor. We have to consider the species' impact on the ecosystem and the importance of controlling the population. Can he comment on this important issue?

[Health, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, when the Liberals took office, they said that the one-way conversations with the provinces were over. However, from what we have been hearing about the health transfer negotiations, it seems nothing has really changed.

The Quebec health minister thinks that the federal government's approach is a trap. Isn't that the truth. The Liberals are trying to sugar-coat it, but they are offering the provinces the same $36-billion cut to federal health transfers that the Conservatives before them were offering.

Can the minister explain the difference between the Conservatives' health care cuts and the Liberals'?

[Canada Revenue Agency, September 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canada signs tax treaties with some countries ostensibly to avoid double taxation, but what actually happens is double non-taxation. Instead of enabling us to collect a portion of the tax, a treaty such as the one with Barbados exempts a company that pays a paltry 2.5% to Barbados from paying tax in Canada.

Yes, we need to take a closer look at whether these tax treaties are working, but my argument was about tax information exchange agreements. As we have seen, such agreements, particularly with the Bahamas, are absolutely useless. Why? Because to get information from the countries with which we have treaties, we need information that quite simply cannot be had by those not already privy to it.

It is a bit like having to have all of the evidence before asking for more evidence. Consequently, I am asking the Canadian government to take a look at how well its treaties and conventions are working because they appear to be patently ineffective.

[Canada Revenue Agency, September 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to continue the discussion we began in question period on September 23. I had asked the Minister of National Revenue a question about the infamous Bahamas Papers, the leaked documents from the Bahamas.

We learned that Senator Eaton was very surprised to see her name listed as a director on the board of a company set up as an equity firm in the Bahamas. She was surprised because she had no idea that that was the case.

This raises two serious problems regarding certain countries considered tax havens, including the Bahamas. The first is the extremely strict bank secrecy. The second is the secrecy regarding the information related to businesses set up as equity firms in those countries.

It is extremely difficult to obtain any information on the bank records or any records identifying the directors of companies set up as equity firms in those countries.

I had asked the minister a question about the famous tax information exchange agreements that Canada has signed. We have signed 21 since 2008, if my memory serves me well. These agreements are supposed to give us greater access to this information. We are given the impression that, with these agreements, we can just ask the tax authorities of those countries for information about Canadian citizens who are supposedly hiding their money or who might use the tax system of those countries for tax evasion or aggressive tax avoidance. The problem is that these agreements do not facilitate any exchange of information, far from it.

What is interesting is that these agreements have gained popularity since the OECD established a grey list of tax havens. It created a template for this type of agreement that was supposed to put an end to the secrecy of banks and even the excessive secrecy of corporations. In order to be taken off the list, a country had to sign these agreements.

That was not too difficult. The Cayman Islands, which were on this list, signed 18 agreements in two years. In general these were agreements the country signed with other tax havens so it would eventually be taken off the list. This shows just how meaningless these agreements are.

As I said, Canada has signed 21 agreements so far. Are we talking about agreements concluded with the United States or with European countries, such as France or Germany? No, these agreements were concluded with Anguilla, the Netherlands Antilles, our first treaty, Aruba, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bermuda, Brunei, and so forth.

Most of these countries are considered tax havens. Canada continues to sign agreements that are utterly ineffective, so much so that when there is a leak like the Bahamas papers, some people are listed as directors without their knowledge.

What I wanted to know when I asked my question, which was not answered to my satisfaction, was whether the Canadian government was going to review the effectiveness of its agreements. Unfortunately, the minister simply responded by reading the notes she usually reads. She talked about the famous $444 million that will eventually be invested, but that does not in any way answer the serious question I asked.

[Canada Revenue Agency, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency claims that it will show no mercy to the fraudsters named in the Panama Papers, but if the past is any indication, I will not be holding my breath.

In past leaks from Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and the Isle of Man, the CRA was ineffective at recovering the money owed and relied heavily on voluntary disclosure, while often granting amnesty to the fraudsters.

How can we trust the minister when the agency she oversees has such an appalling track record?

[Immigration to Atlantic Canada, September 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House.

I am the NDP finance critic as well as my party's critic for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the caucus representative for Atlantic Canada.

These roles gave me the opportunity to visit all four provinces this summer and meet with many different organizations and individuals in each community. It was a wonderful experience that helped me understand the challenges facing the people of Atlantic Canada. We know that they are extremely resilient to these challenges, but the challenges are many.

One of the challenges is demographics. With this motion, the member for Fundy Royal is bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I thank her for doing so.

It would have been relatively simple to ask members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to study the matter, but moving this motion in the House will raise public awareness of the problem, which is a good thing.

When we talk about the challenges that people in Atlantic Canada face, obviously there is a demographic challenge. The demographic challenge is not only in terms of the number of Atlantic Canadians who live there year after year; it is also a question of the aging population. When we look at this situation all across the country, the problem in Atlantic Canada is very acute.

Is immigration the solution to that problem? It might or might not be, but that will be up to the committee to study this question. However, one problem we could see in terms of immigration being the lone solution to this aging problem is the fact that for this immigration, we need an economic environment that is conducive to retaining them after they have arrived.

When we look at the situation in Atlantic Canada, the exodus problem comes from the youth population.

One of the main reasons why we are seeing this exodus of young people is because, although it does vary by region, a large part of the Atlantic provinces' economy depends on seasonal work and many of those jobs are precarious. Obviously, if we want people to immigrate to the Atlantic provinces and stay there, we need good quality jobs, jobs that provide a certain amount of stability for those who want to start a family and watch their children grow up in the Atlantic provinces.

I think that that is one of the main questions that the committee will have to examine if this motion is adopted. I want to say right now that I will be voting in favour of this motion.

One of the reasons why I asked the member for Fundy Royal a question about francophone immigration is that this issue is often overlooked. When we look at the situation across the country, not including Quebec, we see that francophone immigration to the nine other provinces of Canada represents only 2% of the immigrant population.

As in other parts of Canada, francophone communities in the Atlantic provinces are at risk of assimilation and their ability to make a significant contribution to their province's economy is threatened. The fact that more immigrants to Canada are anglophone definitely jeopardizes the vitality of francophone communities surrounded by an anglophone majority.

I am not alone in saying so. Others have also sounded the alarm, including Katherine d’Entremont, the Commissioner of Official Languages for New Brunswick. In 2014, she indicated that francophone communities, which represent one-third of New Brunswick's population, are not deriving as much benefit from immigration as anglophone communities.

Of course, if there are no major demographic changes, immigration is going to start tipping the balance on the anglophone side, potentially threatening francophone and Acadian communities in New Brunswick.

One of the things the member talked about was the pilot program, the details of which began surfacing in July. We will be paying close attention to this pilot program, whose aim is to enhance immigration in the hopes of better attracting and retaining newcomers.

Details remain scarce, however. We do not know how much money will be invested, nor do we know anything about the conditions of the program or how its success will be evaluated. What we do know is that 2,000 immigrants will be accepted initially in the Atlantic provinces, with the hopes that they will one day be able to stay there.

One area where I would love to see the government take concrete action is in economic diversification. If we want to retain these newcomers, having a more stable economy will be crucial. I mentioned the precarious and seasonal nature of the jobs in many industries in Atlantic Canada.

At the beginning of the summer, I was extremely disappointed to learn that the Atlantic fish and seafood processing industry had been exempted by the government from the national restrictions on the temporary foreign workers program, which were put in place because of past abuses.

The restrictions imposed on the program forced industries to offer higher wages in order to attract interested local workers and provide training programs to improve employee retention. As a result of pressure by the fish and seafood processing industry, these companies were allowed easier access to temporary foreign workers rather than hiring local workers. I believe this is a step backwards.

Temporary foreign workers are not really the solution, at least not in the current immigration and demographic context, because these workers come here and eventually leave. Therefore, it was disappointing that the government went in that direction.

The member's motion addresses immigration as a whole, and I certainly hope that the issue of temporary foreign workers and the impact of the program on employment and the local success of industry will be thoroughly studied by the committee. I believe that is something that will need to be addressed to ensure the success of this study.

The NDP will vote in favour of the motion. I do not think we can be opposed to studying the demographic question of Atlantic Canada, not only the question of the population levels but also the question of the aging population. Atlantic Canada has a very specific makeup and has concerns that need to be taken up by the House and the committee.

I certainly hope the committee will take its work in that regard seriously. I look forward to being able to contribute in some manner to its work. We certainly wish the committee success in this work, and we hope the House is able to finally find some solution that will help Atlantic Canada to revitalize their communities. They have done a lot for Canada, and it is time for Canada to give back to them.

[Immigration to Atlantic Canada, September 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fundy Royal for moving a motion that asks for a study on immigration to Atlantic Canada as a possible solution to the demographic challenges facing the people living in the four Atlantic provinces.

However, I noted that, in her speech, she made no mention of the demographics of francophone communities in the four Atlantic provinces. We know there is a serious problem.

We are told that 2% of immigrants outside Quebec, that is to say in provinces other than Quebec, are francophone. The problem was pointed out by New Brunswick's official languages commissioner, who said that the francophone community lags behind the anglophone community in terms of immigration.

According to the member, what place will the issue of the francophone population in these four provinces have in the committee's study on francophone immigration to Atlantic Canada?