Matthew Dubé

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about the point she just mentioned regarding funding.

The government is bringing in a system that will potentially—almost certainly—attract more witnesses. A number of government speakers have said that provincial and municipal police forces would be able to accept more witnesses. We know that this will cost money.

I would like my colleague to talk about the worrisome fact that there will be additional costs. I would also like to hear what she thinks about the fact that the government is once again introducing a bill without properly consulting municipal and provincial authorities.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. The issue of a conflict of interest came out of the recommendations made following the Air India tragedy.

As I said, we have confidence in the members of the RCMP, and we thank them for the excellent work they do every day. In a society based on law, justice and democracy, it is important that we have measures to ensure accountability and a degree of transparency. In this case, it is very important.

We protect witnesses who are often criminals as well. Sometimes they are members of street gangs or organized crime. We have to be very careful to have the mechanisms we need to avoid conflicts of interest. I believe that this serves us well and that it is good for the legal system, which the bill is trying to improve.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is an excellent question because I heard a Conservative member say during the debate that these were administrative changes that would make the program more efficient and that they were going to relax the admission criteria and thus be able to accept and protect more witnesses. However, as my colleague said, if we accept more people and protect more witnesses, somewhere along the line being more efficient will also be more costly because we will be serving more people. That much is obvious, as I said in my speech.

What will happen is that the municipal and provincial police forces will co-operate with the RCMP. Of course, they are very happy. They will be in a situation in which they can co-operate better, protect more witnesses and have more flexibility. However, that also means that the program will serve more people. Consequently, there will be more spending. That is really obvious and it will be hard to manage at the local level. This is what we criticize on the government's part. I believe a little consultation would have gone a long way in this instance.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-51. Fortunately, I have the time to do that, despite the fifth time allocation motion in five days and the thirty-eighth since the beginning of this Parliament.

Since this is my first opportunity to speak to this bill, I want to point out that this morning, the Minister of Public Safety stated that everyone was in agreement on this bill and that since no amendments had been put forward, a debate was pointless. Yet I have been here since early evening and I have been listening to a very interesting discussion on available resources and on the next steps to be taken in the area of witness protection, which is the focus of Bill C-51. This underscores the importance of having a debate to bring these problems to light. Even if these are not settled this time around, at least we will be able to proceed with due diligence in future.

That said, to echo the words of my colleagues, I want to say that the NDP will be supporting this bill since it favours improvements to the witness protection program. Many criticisms have been levelled against the program since it was first introduced in 1996. To finally see the government make some improvements is a positive step, even if it has taken far too long, in our opinion. We will therefore be voting in favour of this bill.

However, as I said, a number of problem areas were discussed this evening. I would like to focus on a few of them.

The first one is very important and may seem rather ironic to some extent, since it concerns witness protection. This bill disregards an important recommendation contained in the report released in the wake of the Air India tragedy. This recommendation focused on the transparency, review and accountability of the program.

It is important because, as I said earlier this evening when I put a question to one of my colleagues, the RCMP oversees the witness protection program, but often it ends up investigating the very same individuals at the same time. Often these persons are also implicated in the crimes in question. Therefore, there is a conflict of interest, so to speak, and that can be a problem.

Therefore, accountability and transparency mechanisms need to be put in place. This is extremely important in order to ensure that the RCMP acts properly. I want to stress that this is not a criticism of the RCMP's work, which is excellent. The members of the RCMP are deserving of our praise, but at the same time, in a society like ours, it is vitally important to have in place mechanisms to ensure transparency.

This is one of the important problems highlighted, particularly since this recommendation was contained in a report drafted in the wake of events having to do with witness protection. There is no reason why the government could not include these mechanisms in this bill. We hope to see this happen in the future.

The other major problem is obviously the issue of resources, which has been noted repeatedly. This is interesting because the Conservative Party member who preceded me said that all the NDP wanted was resources and spending. However, what is funny is that we in fact want to avoid burying the provinces and municipalities under more expenses. We are facilitating co-operation between the RCMP and local and provincial authorities. If we improve co-operation and expand witness protection admission criteria, more people will actually enter the program. Consequently, more spending will be incurred. That seems obvious to me.

The question thus arises as to who will absorb those costs. The RCMP, of course, already has resources, but municipal and provincial authorities will receive more applications and will accept more of them as a result of more flexible criteria, and they will have to cover the necessary costs.

However, municipal and provincial authorities are very concerned. We know they are because that is what we heard in committee. The RCMP is not concerned because it says it has the necessary resources, and that is a good thing.

As for provincial and municipal authorities, as my colleague from Toronto—Danforth said, everything will depend on how the federation is managed, how the government works under collaborative federalism.

I think it is a major problem for the government to introduce a bill when there has been very little consultation, knowing that it will result in additional costs. That is one of the criticisms we want to make.

I will conclude by saying that we support the bill. However, we wanted to point out those two extremely significant deficiencies. However, we hope that we will be able to rectify the situation in future and that this will be a lesson to the government to co-operate more with local authorities so that they can lower their costs and not succumb to the effects of bills that, like this one, are introduced unilaterally.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the recommendations made in the report that was produced following the Air India tragedy.

One of the recommendations had to do with the fact that witnesses who need protection are often themselves involved in crime. For instance, this is often the case with members of street gangs and organized crime. When the RCMP has to choose witnesses and protect them on the one hand, while also possibly investigating them on the other hand, this can cause a conflict of interest. The recommendation had to do specifically with the lack of independence in the process, which could be problematic.

I wonder if my colleague could talk a little more about that. Does he think this flaw in the bill will be corrected in the future?

[Petitions, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition reminding the government of its duty to meet the millennium goals, which it committed to in 2008. What makes this petition even more impressive is that a young constituent in my riding, Charlotte Côté, collected more than 5,0000 signatures from across Canada. I am so pleased to see that kind of drive from youth in my riding, and I am honoured to present her work here in the House. I want to congratulate her, and I hope that she will always be this engaged.

[Tourism Industry, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Formula One Canadian Grand Prix, like other major tourist events, is an economic driver for Montreal, Quebec and Canada.

The Conservatives refuse, yet again, to work with their provincial and municipal partners to keep the Grand Prix in Montreal for the next 10 years.

It is a matter of choice: they can continue to invest in their propaganda or they can invest in something truly worthwhile, like the Formula One.

Will the federal government work with its partners to keep the Grand Prix in Montreal?

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question, which is exactly what we are asking ourselves here today.

If we look at the measures themselves, some of them will work for the people and for businesses, for the very people we represent. However, the problem is the impact they have on the economy. That is what people told the Standing Committee on Finance during pre-budget consultations. They pointed out that waiting 10, 12, 13 or 15 years for the government to incorporate promised measures creates a climate of uncertainty that is not good for the economy.

I must say that it is a bit ironic for a government that claims to manage the economy so well to foster this climate of uncertainty. That is why we are raising this issue today. The government may not be so great at managing the economy after all. This issue is proof of that.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the quote he just shared. That is precisely the problem.

When they move a time allocation motion to shut down debate, they sometimes accuse us of wasting time on bills that we support.

This bill is a perfect example. We support it, but as my colleague said so well, this is a good opportunity to study something that is very complex and important for taxpayers in every one of our ridings. We have an opportunity to debate the bill and I must admit that I am no expert on the subject matter. Nevertheless, having the opportunity to share my point of view on this bill allowed me to study the issue and understand the concerns that have been raised.

Even though we support the bill, we must point out any major flaws on behalf of our constituents, the people we represent. Missing out on this opportunity is simply unacceptable, but that has happened to us some 30-odd times since the 2011 election. It is unacceptable, shameful and unfortunate and we are seeing it more and more from this government.

As my colleague said so well, when it comes to the taxpayers' money and complex tax issues, losing this opportunity to study and debate this issue is truly unfortunate. It is too bad that there are not more people across the way who share this opinion.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

Contrary to what we just heard, while the government is trying to make up stories about a non-existent carbon tax, Bill C-48 has to do with actual tax-related issues.

This is not a platform for Conservative members to invent stories. No, this is a very important process. We are looking at how the system will change, as well as at the implementation of certain procedures and recommendations that came out of letters sent by the Minister of Finance, communications with accountants, for example, and pre-budget consultations.

We certainly support the various measures in the bill. As a result, we will be supporting the bill today at third reading.

However, a number of aspects of the overall process are problematic, and some issues have to be given due consideration. We were given 1,000 pages all at once. People will wonder how we can support what is basically a 1,000-page omnibus bill after we opposed the omnibus budget bills introduced in the past year. The answer is simple. The difference today is that we are discussing a bill that deals with the same subject, namely, various related acts. This is not like what happened last year. For example, Bill C-38 covered employment insurance reform, environmental protection and so on. For that reason, we do not have a problem with this bill.

What does bother us about the omnibus nature of this bill is that many of these measures have been dragging on for over a decade. We are not the only ones saying so. The former Auditor General also commented on the situation in her 2009 report. At that time, she pointed out that there were 400 measures that had not yet been enacted. These measures were proposed in comfort letters from the Minister of Finance or previous finance ministers in recent years, but none of them had been legislated.

I will explain how this works for the benefit of our viewers. Unlike with other bills, tax-related measures such as these are initially implemented through comfort letters in order to expedite their application. However, the House of Commons must later pass a bill to truly finalize these measures.

What the former Auditor General meant was that 400 measures had been proposed but that the House had not yet passed legislation on them. Bill C-48 contains only 200 of these 400 measures, so there is still a great deal of work to be done.

I mention this because the former Auditor General is not the only one who raised this problem. Various members of the business and accounting communities have also done so. They have testified before the Standing Committee on Finance and written letters to the Minister of Finance and the various MPs who have held that position in the past 10, 12 or 13 years, while these measures have sat on the shelf.

These people have said that it is not good for the business community, small businesses or people who have to deal with the tax code or the tax system. There is a great deal of uncertainty. The finance minister tells them that certain measures are going to be implemented but then the government waits 5, 10, 13 or 15 years before it passes legislation on these measures.

This creates a certain amount of uncertainty, which is not good for the economy, or for business people and individuals who are trying their best to understand issues that are already quite complex. Very few people outside the accounting community can really stand up and say that they truly understand the entire tax code. It is extremely complex. Fortunately, we have accountants who can help us to understand it. However, they are the ones who are saying that this somewhat haphazard approach is causing them problems.

Although we support these measures and therefore the bill, I believe that this process and this debate highlight the fact that the process needs to be reviewed and made faster.

If the minister is going to promise measures to business people, accountants and everyone concerned, those measures need to be passed in a timely manner, which has not happened in the past. Another issue that was raised is the fact that a number of measures are being passed at the same time. We need to avoid that.

As I explained, this omnibus bill is less problematic than the budget implementation bills. However, to wake up one morning to all these measures and so many related tasks will create a lot of work for accountants, business people and the public, who want to understand how the government manages the taxes they pay. It is important to make the process easier, and that is what the government should be focusing on.

As I already mentioned, we need to look at how the world is currently evolving. Tax season brings with it television ads encouraging people to buy tax software. People are making money off that, which is fine. I am not out to attack or criticize them. However, let us put ourselves in the shoes of someone who is not a tax expert. In my opinion, if the government simplified the process and made it more efficient and easier to comprehend, the public would be in a better position to understand how the system works. People would be more inclined to trust the government and how it spends taxpayers' money.

Just look at the current climate: people do not have a lot of faith in how their elected representatives are spending their tax dollars. This would be a step in the right direction and a good way to regain the public trust. Of course, this is not the ultimate solution. However, the government should have a closer look at this issue, and that is what the bill before us proposes.

I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, but I had a chance to read the testimony given at that committee. It is quite interesting, because it shows just how out of touch past Liberal governments and the current Conservative government have been with reality as expressed by various accountants' associations during pre-budget consultations. They stated repeatedly that the government really needs to re-evaluate the situation.

The bill contains measures that have been under discussion since 1998. The time frame is completely absurd. If I were a small business owner who had to pay taxes and was trying to understand these measures, I would see that some of these measures were supposed to have been incorporated into our tax law in 1998 or 2001. It is 2013, and they have not yet been incorporated.

These measures are not yet part of the legislation. I see that as a serious problem. The process really needs to be re-evaluated. Every political party in the House would agree to that. Furthermore, members of the Standing Committee on Finance could examine it.

I will close on that point, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to the process, because although we support the bill, this has really highlighted some of its flaws. I think we need to use this debate as an opportunity to address these flaws and find ways to improve the system. We should not have to do this every 15 years, nor should we have to add hundreds of tax measures at the same time. A more appropriate approach would be better for taxpayers, entrepreneurs and accountants, to name a few.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I now invite questions and comments from my colleagues.