Hélène Laverdière

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I have no intention of being caught in the crossfire or being used as a ping-pong ball by my Conservative and Liberal colleagues.

I would be quite willing to delve deeper into the issues I raised, for example. What are we going to do? We are going to deal with it, fine. Now, what are we going to do for the future, not only to prepare for a return to peace in this highly sensitive region, and not just in that region, but what are we going to do to prevent further crises like this?

It may seem like I am veering way off course but, for me, these topics are closely related. What are we going to do in the refugee camps in the Central African Republic, where the recruitment of extremists never stops? What help will we give to these places?

It would appear that everyone agrees on this motion, except when it comes to which side gets the ping-pong ball and who is to blame. I would like us to use our time differently: once we agree this situation needs to be resolved, which I believe we did in the first half hour or the first hour of debate, it would be nice to talk about what we are going to do in the future to resolve this situation and avoid situations like this happening again.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would point out that, if memory serves, I was talking about the Government of Canada.

I think there is no place for partisanship when we are talking about our men and women in uniform. I know that we are always steeped in partisanship here, but I was talking about the Government of Canada.

In this instance I was not pointing fingers, although on some topics I find that the Conservatives and Liberals have rather similar positions. What I see is that this motion seeks to correct an unacceptable situation; I will support it.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today and speak about such an important issue. It is extremely important, because for the government it is an enormous responsibility to send our men and women in uniform into harm’s way. This is why we must face up to this responsibility, which means a number of things.

For example, this means providing the safest possible framework and proper equipment, and we know the needs in that respect are great. We must continue to work on this and provide proper training. What is not more fundamental but just as important as the technical and material aspects is the need to treat our men and women in uniform with respect. This means recognizing the risk they are put under and giving them adequate compensation.

This is why the very idea of eliminating the tax benefit, which provides between $1,500 and $1,800 per day to soldiers fighting ISIS in compensation for the adversity and the risk they face while on mission, is a disgrace, especially considering the tax breaks offered to big companies and the very rich.

Some people will say that all our soldiers are doing is providing training, advice, and support, but we know that such is not the case. There are risks associated with fighting ISIS. Our soldiers in Iraq in particular are often on the front lines. There have been firefights and even one death. I call that a high-risk mission. I think the Minister of National Defence himself recognized that. That level of risk will have to be taken into account. The government cannot bury its head in the sand. It needs to be open, transparent, and honest about the nature of the mission and properly compensate our men and women in uniform.

I would like to come back to a question that my colleague from Sherbrooke was asked. He gave an excellent speech and he is in close contact with the people and organizations in his riding. He always knows the people he talks about. He actually goes out into the community. He is not just putting on a show.

The member for Sherbrooke was asked about what Canada can do, and I also want to talk about that. There are certain areas in which Canada can play a critical leadership role. That role can be shared in some regards. For example, the Secretary General of the United Nations and others have asked us to stop the flow of weapons and fighters. That is so vital.

Allied forces are retaking Mosul, but the fighters slip away. One of my colleagues made a comparison that I like to use. He said that these terrorist groups are like the Hydra from Greek mythology. When we cut off its head, two heads grow back in its place.

If we want to solve this problem, we need a practical political solution. Stemming the flow of weapons and fighters and fighting radicalization are important, but essentially, we need to find a political solution and take preventive action in fragile regions.

Two other elements that have always been key for the NDP are humanitarian aid and welcoming refugees. Humanitarian aid is still essential. On the ground, it comes in waves. We do not hear much about it these days, but truly awful things are still happening. We must not forget. How can we be so quick to forget the photo of little Aylan, who was found on a beach? That happened just a few months ago.

What about the children in Syria? It is terrible for them because they are under tremendous psychological stress in addition to the stress of everyday living. Assuming a political solution is found eventually, the question is, how will Syria be rebuilt? We need to start thinking about that now. How will Mosul be rebuilt? Are the different communities talking to each other enough? Can we foster that dialogue so the city can be rebuilt as harmoniously and inclusively as possible?

Yes, last week there was an announcement about humanitarian assistance. While I thank the government, there also needs to be development assistance. We need to stop being so short-sighted and think further ahead than the immediate future.

This morning, a woman from Syria who has been living in Turkey for four years spoke before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. She has established centres in Syria where she provides safe spaces for Syrians of all political and religious backgrounds to come together in a safe location. These centres work with women and children because they know very well that their chances of success increase greatly when women are actively involved in conflict resolution and reconstruction.

These centres are building for the future. They are supported in Canada by Development and Peace. We had the chance to speak about it this morning in committee. Unfortunately, many Development and Peace programs, which are critical if we do not want to end up with the same problem in 10, 20, or 30 years, have more to do with development. However, funding is limited; the organization only receives small grants for six months or a year, which does not allow it to train people or put things into place.

I will use this motion as an opportunity to appeal to the government as well: we cannot forget to work on this aspect in the longer term because it will have to be dealt with one of these days.

I see that my time is running out, but I simply wanted to say in closing that I will be voting in favour of this motion, as I believe my colleagues will. I find that in a way it reaffirms the government’s moral obligation to our men and women in uniform.

[Foreign Affairs, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, with this government, it seems that everything is for sale.

We all know that women do not have equal rights in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, Canada continues to export weapons to that country and to others, such as Libya, that have very questionable human rights records. Canada is now the second-largest exporter of arms to the Middle East.

Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs believe that Canada should export military equipment to countries that violate women's rights? Are we now a nation of feminists—

[Foreign Affairs, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the contract was signed by the Conservatives. What the Liberals are telling us is that it was a done deal, except that it was the Liberals who approved the export permit, which is a crucial element. The contract is not finalized until there is an export permit.

The export permit is not a Christmas ornament; it is the last, crucial step. If we look at this as some secondary, minor point, it is no big deal, and all the fine speeches about the highest standards for peace and human rights are nothing but empty rhetoric in such a context.

My colleague also said that all arms sales are carefully reviewed. If they are carefully reviewed, why is it that the minister was not even briefed on it, which we know through an access to information request?

[Foreign Affairs, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2016, I rose in the House to ask the former Minister of Foreign Affairs why he blocked a shipment of weapons to Thailand because of human rights concerns, which was a very good thing, but approved the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, even if it has an even worse human rights record, if that is possible, and in spite of the actions of Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

I also asked him when he would accept the idea of creating a parliamentary committee to examine Canadian arms sales on an ongoing basis given that the Liberals promised transparency during their mandate.

I did not really get an answer. We all know that it is question period and not necessarily answer period, but the minister did inform me of Canada's intent to sign the Arms Trade Treaty. Since then, the government has continued to ignore us when we have asked for greater transparency.

The situation in Yemen has drastically deteriorated. Two-thirds of the population, or 19 million people, needs humanitarian aid and the government remains silent.

We also learned that the former Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time was not suitably made aware of the human rights situation before approving the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. As far as the Arms Trade Treaty is concerned, we are still looking for the bill. I am not sure if it is hidden somewhere in an office, but there has been no movement on the matter.

I have a number of questions for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. First, does she believe that Canadians, through the work of this Parliament, are entitled to transparency when it comes to the sale of Canadian arms?

Did the department responsible adequately inform the minister of the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia?

How does the minister feel as a woman, on the eve of International Women's Day, about the fact that we are selling arms to a regime that oppresses women?

Does the minister believe that Saudi Arabia violated international humanitarian law in Yemen? If so, what does she intend to do about that?

When are we finally going to see the bill to have Canada sign the Arms Trade Treaty?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, indeed, my colleague is quite right about the amount of money Canada is missing out on thanks to corporate tax cuts made under the Harper government.

In fact, we have practically become a tax haven ourselves, right here. We have seen American companies move their head office to Canada in order to pay Canadian taxes, rather than American taxes, without having any real impact on job creation here or any real benefits for Canadians and Canadian workers.

I see my Conservative friends applauding. They are applauding a facade, a superficial measure that did not really change anything for Canadians. In fact, it is problematic. I know my colleague cares deeply about human rights. We also have similar problems regarding rules for Canadian companies operating abroad and their environmental and human rights records. We are almost becoming what Panama is for boats, that is, some sort of port of convenience.

I think that needs to stop, and although we need to work internationally, the first measures—

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Yes, it is important to work at the international level. Some aspects of this issue cannot be managed or resolved unless we all work together with our partners around the world. However, there are also measures that need to be taken here in Canada. I will go back to the example of how Canada does not impose any penalties or sanctions on people who engage in tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

KPMG is being prosecuted elsewhere. There are people who impose sanctions. In Canada, companies do this sort of thing and we tell them that, if they admit to abusing the system, that will be the end of it. These are measures that Canada itself can take. I think that a distinction needs to be made. We cannot just sit back and say that what happens is up to others. This government has a role to play and I hope that it will play it.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this motion. In my opinion, tax avoidance and tax evasion rank right up there with world peace and the need to save the planet. This is an extremely important issue.

In the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, there are community organizations that are struggling to make ends meet and cannot hire the staff they need. I meet with young people who would like the government to invest in their future and in the green economy. Some immigrants need more services, and that includes French tests that cost the same as English tests.

Some organizations that help homeless women have to turn people away because they do not have enough room. There are families with children who have to choose between paying rent and paying for groceries because the government is not investing enough in affordable housing and social housing.

All across the country, people are waiting for reasonably priced day care spaces, workers want the government to invest in job retraining, children are living in poverty, and indigenous people want the government to keep its promises.

Far too often, there are not enough resources to accomplish all these basic things. However, the resources are there. In the meantime, we are losing hundreds of billions of dollars to tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

There is no reason this lost money should not be recovered. Some tangible measures can be taken immediately. One clear and straightforward example would be to get rid of the stock options tax loophole for CEOs. When CEOs are paid with stock options, their salary is considered a capital gain and is taxed at half the regular rate. Through this option, roughly 8,000 Canadians have deducted on average $400,000 from their taxable income.

Someone who earns $40,000 does not have that option. They have to pay the regular tax rate that applies to that salary. However, CEOs are entitled to reduce a big part of their income by 50%. It is interesting because during the election campaign, the Liberals promised to cap it at $100,000. I think that is rather generous. However, once elected, they broke their promise. What a surprise.

There are other very simple things that can be done. We could amend the tax rules for businesses that are fond of using shell companies, which have no economic purpose. They only serve to protect the wealth of the ultra-rich. Therefore, we could ask businesses to provide proof of the economic reasons justifying the existence of foreign subsidiaries.

We could also review tax agreements that allow businesses to report their profits in tax havens and to return them to Canada tax free. In my opinion, this is vitally important. There are 92 such treaties with countries such as Barbados, Jamaica, and the Republic of Malta, among others, which allow people to commit tax evasion simply by sending billions of dollars to tax havens without paying taxes.

For example, between 1988 and 2001, direct Canadian investment in Barbados rose from $628 million to $23.3 billion, a 3,600% increase.

It is also crucial that we put an end to penalty-free tax amnesty deals for individuals suspected of tax evasion.

Case in point, recently a deal was made with KPMG clients shielding them from civil or criminal prosecution as well as fines and penalties.

If I file my taxes late, I have to pay a fine. Same goes for the guy next door and all other ordinary Canadians, but people who get caught evading taxes do not have to pay a fine. Worse still, a young teenager who shoplifts has to pay the price, but the super-rich do not have to pay anything back.

We also need a higher threshold for foreign subsidiaries' interest payments. That is another tax avoidance strategy. I do not have much time, so I will not go into detail, but meaningful action can be taken now.

The truth is, we do not really know how much money is involved because tax evasion and tax avoidance, by definition, hide money. Still, if we had that money, we could fund our social programs.

In the longer term, we need to work at the international level. I would like to see Canada take a leadership role because everyone has to pull together on this if we want things to change. The impact in places like Africa can be significant. We give a lot of international aid to African countries. Those countries lose much more to tax avoidance and evasion than they receive in international aid. There is a long-term benefit here because if we help them, if we all work together to do away with the schemes that individuals and big corporations are typically involved in, that can help African countries. We would not have to invest as much. There are a lot of knock-on effects to consider here.

Dealing with this issue would therefore allow us to recover those resources, and that is very important. However, I would like to point out in closing that this is not simply a matter of resources. It is also a matter of social justice. Taxes are the price that must be paid for living in a civilized world, a democracy with community spirit. Everyone must do their part to the best of their ability. It is therefore a matter of social justice. It is also about democracy because, sooner or later, this practice will jeopardize it. Societies are becoming increasingly unstable because they are no longer able to fund their basic social programs. However, it is almost as though there is a network of people who lives between one tax haven and another without any civic engagement toward the governments of the countries where they do business or toward society in general.

I want to close with a plug for the film The Price We Pay. I highly recommend it to those who have not seen it.

I am very proud to support this motion. I hope that all of my colleagues in the House will do the same.

[Foreign Affairs, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in light of North Korea's actions, it is more important than ever for the international community to work toward nuclear disarmament.

It is not enough to hide behind the treaty to ban the production of fissile materials. We need to be more ambitious if we want to eliminate this threat.

My question is simple. Will Canada participate in the negotiations on nuclear disarmament taking place in New York this month, yes or no?