Pierre Dionne Labelle

[Zamudio Family, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Zamudio family fled Mexico after receiving death threats from a drug cartel. Luz Maria Zamudio and her husband and two children are now facing the possibility of being deported from Canada.

The Federal Court denied them refugee status, claiming that the family could live safely in another state where the cartel does not have a presence. The family has already been threatened and chased out of three different areas of Mexico where it was taking refuge before coming to Canada. The Zamudios will never be safe in Mexico because all the cartels are part of a larger network and are in collusion with the police.

The community of Saint-Jérôme says that it wants the family to stay. The Zamudios are a model family. They are productive and remarkably well integrated. What is more, they learned French in no time and they enjoy the unequivocal support of the community.

The Zamudio family must be allowed to stay in Canada on humanitarian grounds, for the good of everyone.

[Tax Evasion, April 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking all my NDP colleagues who were more than happy to speak to this motion and support it strongly.

In 2009, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, referred to a building in the Cayman Islands that housed 18,857 duly registered corporations. At the time he said, “That's either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world”.

I listened closely to the comments by the members from the governing party and their objections to supporting this exercise, which urges the federal government to take serious measures to assess the federal tax gap arising from the use of tax havens and to accurately measure the Canadian tax revenues lost to tax havens.

In order to obtain reliable figures on the tax gap, the motion calls on the Canada Revenue Agency to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the information necessary to prepare an estimate. We know full well that the Conservatives are at loggerheads with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and that they are not going to support this transfer of information.

I would like to start by saying that I completely object to the arguments put forward by members of the government about how difficult it would be to assess tax losses. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, have done it. There is no reason that Canada cannot do the same.

To help government members reflect on the approach that could be taken, I would suggest that we need to look at the many tax treaties that Canada has signed with countries of convenience. Then we could assess the impact on the tax system for Canadians and Canadian businesses.

I am not just talking about the 92 treaties on double taxation that Canada has signed, notably with a number of countries that are considered tax havens, but I am also talking about the tax information exchange agreements that the government has signed since 2009 with 29 countries, 19 of which are considered countries of convenience.

There are gaps in our tax system and plenty of tax experts of all kinds are taking it upon themselves to guide our businesses towards tax havens.

According to some experts, Canada is losing up $7.8 billion in taxes every year because wealthy individuals and big Canadian businesses are making use of tax havens.

A study by the socio-economic studies lab at the Université du Québec indicated that in 2009 and 2011, about 30 of the 100 largest Canadian companies had an effective tax rate of less than 10%. What is worse, 14 of them paid no tax, not one cent. When we take a closer look, a very high number of these companies have subsidiaries or affiliates in tax havens.

The statutory tax, that is, the combined federal and provincial tax rate for this kind of company in Canada, is 26.1%. Therefore, we have to wonder what portion of the CRA's tax loss is due to the use of tax havens by these major companies. We have to go over agreements with a fine-tooth comb to determine how they fail to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, and to find and close the loopholes that are eroding the Canadian tax base.

Another component of my motion calls on the Auditor General to evaluate, on a regular basis, the number of cases prosecuted by the CRA and the success of these prosecutions. It seems to me that this is also a priority.

The government boasts about having implemented 75 measures to fight tax havens. However, in the past six years in power, only eight people have been convicted of using tax havens.

Only eight people have been convicted out of the 4,000 people known to the CRA as a result of international disclosures concerning the use of tax havens.

[Taxation, April 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if tax havens are enchanted islands where the world's thieves and mobsters hide their treasure, then why are hundreds of Canadian companies doing business there, and why do Canadian banks have 75 branches there?

Some experts say that tax havens cost Canada between $5 billion and $7 billion per year in uncollected tax. With that much money every year, we could build four mega-hospitals or 8,500 social housing units, or we could increase old age pensions by 20%.

Wage earners have no choice but to pay tax on every paycheque. However, the very rich and the big Canadian corporations benefit from treaties the government signs with countries of convenience, treaties that enable them to legally evade taxes.

That makes no sense and I cannot figure out why it is legal. It is starting to look more and more like social fraud. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General need to take a close look at this.

As Victor Hugo would say: “One feels the place reeks of secret histories”.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to hear my colleague's thoughts on the Canadian mines in Honduras, particularly the Goldcorp mine in San Martin.

Before 2009, there were complaints about the use of toxic chemicals in this open-pit mine. Then-president Manuel Zelaya had drafted a legal framework to crack down on mines. Just a few days before the measure was to be passed in 2009, there was a coup. The subject never came up again.

I would like my colleague to tell us what she thinks of this.

[Petitions, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in the House to present a petition signed by constituents of Rivière-du-Nord. They are outraged at the idea of having to pay to receive paper copies of their bills.

I would remind the House that in this year's Speech from the Throne, the government said that it would abolish these fees for paper bills. The government repeated that message during the budget presentation. I just received my latest bill from Bell and it still includes that charge.

[Meat Inspection Act, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing all that relevant information.

By way of comparison, what about cattle? Beef farmers also use antibiotics and various products.

Can my colleague give us a percentage on how the harmful effects of products used in raising these two types of livestock compare?

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The problem with the Liberal Party is that it was in power for a long time. This issue has been on the political agenda since 2001.

This is similar to the case of bilingual officers of Parliament. This year, the NDP managed to pass a bill requiring officers of Parliament to be bilingual. The Liberals were in power for 20 or 25 years. How did they not think it was necessary for these officers to be bilingual?

If I am not mistaken, they were still in power in 2001 when these negotiations started and they did not resolve them quickly, at least no more quickly than the Conservative government.

Workers in Canada and Quebec cannot count on any party other than the NDP to defend workers' rights.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I was thinking before I started my speech.

The faster we go, the less the government wants to hear about certain aspects. In this case, it does not want to hear about how workers could be better protected. It is ignoring that aspect to make it easier for the industry to get at deposits as quickly as possible, and it is not considering the human condition in the situation.

The NDP represents the people. We care about the human condition and about what it means to participate in an economy and protect one another.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. Although I have not been in politics for long, I grasped quite quickly that when the government wants to keep speeding things up, it may be because it does not want us to look too closely at certain things.

This matter of the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia boards to deal with offshore oil exploration and development is something I find exceedingly interesting, because there is an eerie and somewhat fantastical aspect to it. I have trouble imagining a group of workers getting into a helicopter, flying out to the middle of the Gulf or off the banks of Newfoundland in sometimes unbelievable weather conditions, to work on an oil rig in the midst of 30-metre waves. Most Canadians could not even imagine what it must be like. And yet, that is what everyday life is like for many seafaring workers.

This image of the platform is like a floating prison where people are forced to work for 12, 14 or 16 hours a day under extreme pressure, because the companies that operate these platforms are often subcontractors, and occupational safety is not a priority for them.

There is black gold fever in Canada at the moment. The goal is to develop all opportunities to extract and exploit oil as quickly as possible, with minimal concern for environmental impacts—a frequent occurrence in the past—or for the working conditions of the people who work there.

I am interested in these things, particularly given that these drilling platforms are not standardized. There are many different kinds. Some are floating platforms, some are modular or semi-submerged and others are jacked up on barges. Each type of drilling platform is therefore different, meaning that workers on these platforms are subjected to different working conditions. Do people know where the water hoses are when they are on a different platform, or when they are young workers first arriving on a platform?

Young workers might well wonder what type of platform it is, what the working conditions are, what kind of pressure they will face and what health risks are involved. This is dangerous work.

I now return to the bill that is meant to address a shortcoming in the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, which we have been attempting to do for 14 years. Occupational health and safety regimes have been enshrined in the act.

The NDP is extremely happy about this, except for a major drawback. Experts and indeed everyone who has analyzed the disasters or injuries suffered by workers have suggested the creation of an agency that is independent from the two boards in order to provide a perspective exclusively focused on occupational health and safety. Other countries have done this, including Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia. We, however, do not appear to be there yet.

I will not quote yet again from Robert Wells, whose report suggested the establishment of an independent agency. Instead, I examined the terms used in the act itself to determine why, when he analyzed the issue, he decided that the answer was to create an independent agency. I therefore reviewed the mandates of the boards provided for in the Atlantic Accord Act, particularly in terms of implementation.

My review of their mandate showed that the board is responsible for offshore management. It deals with the issuance of interests, exploration licences, significant discovery licences, drilling orders, production licences and royalties. It is also responsible for issuing operating licences and authorizations for work, and it has authority in the areas of financial responsibility, investigations and offences. It deals with income taxes, taxes on insurance premiums, tax administration agreements, jurisdiction of courts, regulations and payments. It is also responsible for determining equalization payments on oil deposit royalties. That is the board's mandate.

The bill is designed to add a mandate for the protection of worker safety. The board was established to oversee and regulate oil operations. There is no mention of anything human in its mandate. That is not part of it. The board has been failing to deal with this issue for years. On a platform, it is the union that strives to improve working conditions. Workers are in a no man's land.

It is not a good idea for the same board to be made responsible for monitoring occupational health and safety. That is why it is worth discussing. If action is taken too quickly and the board is given responsibility in this area, it will not exercise this responsibility as it should. Everyone knows that work on offshore platforms is very dangerous. It is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, and there have been many accidents.

We all remember the major accidents. There have been many oil platform explosions over the past 20 years. They began in the 1970s. There were 123 deaths on the Alexander L. Kielland platform and 167 on the Piper Alpha platform. Here in Canada in 2009, a helicopter crash killed 17 people. In 2010, we all saw what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, when 11 workers were killed.

More recently, in 2011, there were victims in Russia. Off Africa, six people were killed. In the North Sea in August 2013, four died when a helicopter crashed in an incident like the one here in Canada.

We will support this bill, because it will cover the transportation of workers to the platforms and it is important for the workers to be covered during transportation.

There are also many injuries on the platforms. Many hazardous products are used. There are back injuries and there are burns. Medical assistance is required and people are in the middle of the ocean.

For all these reasons, it would be a good thing to create an independent body to handle safety and ensure that everyone who goes to these platforms is monitored in some way, with a view to ensuring that workers are not injured and that when they return to their families, they are still in one piece.

Working on a platform can be exciting. It pays extremely well, but the risks are enormous. I think that establishing an independent body would mean better oversight of all this.

Why was a review of the act after five years requested? Because the black gold rush is on and things are moving quickly. Projects are proliferating. There has been exploratory drilling at 200 sites in Nova Scotia and 376 sites in Newfoundland. People go to sea with not nearly enough protection.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their patience. I would be glad to answer a few questions.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day. I have to wonder, when I hear the member talk about these principles and about corporate social responsibility.

What is the Government of Canada's social responsibility?

The member says that he is pro-trade. The Hells Angels are too.

Who were those negotiators from Honduras; who were those people we negotiated with? They were people responsible for murders and acts of violence, people who killed journalists and union activists.

I am not surprised to hear this sort of logic from the Conservatives. However, I think it is disgusting that the Liberal Party, including the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who ran in the leadership race to become prime minister and whom I consider to be a man of integrity, is okay with Canada signing this agreement with the most violent country in Latin America, where democracy is violated the most. That is what I am most sad about today.