Jean-Pierre Blackburn

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a) The confidentiality provisions of the acts administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, prevent the disclosure of any taxpayer information. However, the CRA can say that it was first made aware of the possibility of a “Canada Desk” when the report entitled “Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance” issued by the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, was made public on July 17, 2008, and through subsequent media reports in November 2008, more specifically a Globe and Mail article dated November 14, 2008, “Swiss banking's $5.6-billion man”.

In response to b) The confidentiality provisions of the acts administered by the CRA prevent the disclosure of any taxpayer information. However, as a matter of course, the CRA takes all allegations of possible non-compliance very seriously. Where the CRA is made aware of or provided with information on possible non-compliance with Canadian tax laws, the CRA reviews the information to determine whether non-compliance exists. If non-compliance is detected, the CRA takes appropriate actions, which could include audits or investigations.

The confidentiality provisions of the acts administered by the CRA, prevents the CRA from providing a response to parts c), d) and e).

In response to f) As noted in a), the CRA reviews information available to determine possible level of non-compliance in any sector of the economy. The confidentiality provisions of the acts administered by the CRA prevent the disclosure of any taxpayer information

In response to g) The confidentiality provisions of the acts administered by the CRA prevent the disclosure of any taxpayer information. With regard to penalties and/or interest, in general, the CRA would levy those in accordance with legislation. In Canada, only the courts have the power to levy fines in cases involving possible tax evasion or avoidance.

[Employment Insurance, June 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, once again I wish to remind them that, although they are disappointed, there is no crisis today. We have come to an agreement and we have avoided an election. The Bloc does not like it and only wants the downfall of the country. For our part, we want to make Canada thrive and we are attempting to contribute to the economic prosperity of the country.

We recently extended unemployment benefits by five weeks and they voted against it. This summer we will work on further enhancing the system. However, they might vote against it again.

[Employment Insurance, June 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is a very disappointing day for the leader of the Bloc and his team because we again avoided a crisis that they wanted. They wanted another crisis, they wanted an election, they wanted to waste half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money on an election.

But no, we came to an agreement. We are working in the interests of the unemployed and workers and we will already be taking action this summer to improve the employment insurance system.

[Product Labelling, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member says I do sweet nothing, but at least I am not here to try to whip up crises and break up the country. I am here to try to build.

In the extremely constructive meeting we had yesterday with some thirty processors, we spoke about the "Product of Canada" label. A number of them spoke of the difficulties it meant for them. There will be follow up to this meeting, since I did not hold it for nothing.

[Product Labelling, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, an important event took place. As we know, the department of agriculture is also the department of agri-food. This is the way it has been for 15 years, and yesterday, for the first time, we met stakeholders from the food processing industry. There were more than thirty of them sitting around a table to talk to us about their difficulties and the things they would like changed in our government. It was an exceedingly constructive meeting.

[Employment Insurance, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois leader's language is not very appropriate. He should watch what he says.

When we were asked to support the aerospace industry, they refused. After the whole thing was cancelled, they suddenly decided that they were willing to support us, but it was too late. They want crises here in Ottawa, but we want to move our economy forward.

As for employment insurance, amendments are coming in the fall. For the first time in our history, we are going to help self-employed workers who want to contribute in order to receive employment insurance in the future. This is another tangible measure our government is preparing to take.

[Employment Insurance, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois leader and his party are in this House to create crises and ensure that the country does not function. I will give an example. As recently as this week, our government was invited to the Paris Air Show at Le Bourget in France. We were to attend to support the aerospace sector, which employs 45,000 people. The Bloc Québécois did not cooperate and prevented us from supporting this industry, which is extremely important to Quebec.

Why do they refuse to help us when we want to help people have opportunities to develop our economy?

[Employment Insurance, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will quote from another article. According to the OECD, the crisis is slowing in many countries. The OECD says:

...indicators for April 2009 point to a reduced pace of deterioration in most of the OECD economies with stronger signals...in Canada...

Our measures are paying off. We have given people five more weeks of EI benefits, where the Bloc suggested only two. Our measures to improve employment insurance total $7.3 billion in 2008-09. That is what we—

[Employment Insurance, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Bloc Québécois members are not following the news. This week, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation said it expected housing starts to continue improving in Canada, both for single family homes and for multiple dwellings.

Why? Why is the economy improving? Because we have invested $12 billion in infrastructure. We are giving people a $1,350 renovation credit. That is how we are making progress.

I do not understand why they are voting against that. How can they be opposed to the fact that we are helping Canadians?

[Product Labelling, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have to take into consideration the entire agri-food processing sector. At present, we have this 98% rule for Canadian content. Consumers know what to expect. I repeat that we will continue to listen and that there will soon be a meeting with representatives of the processing industry. We will delve further into the matter if necessary.