Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Liechtenstein leaks, the Panama Papers and the Bahamas Leaks: (a) how many Canadian taxpayers were identified in the documents obtained, broken down by information leak and type of taxpayer, that is (i) an individual, (ii) a corporation, (iii) a partnership or trust; (b) how many audits did the CRA launch following the identification of taxpayers in (a), broken down by information leak; (c) of the audits in (b), how many were referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program, broken down by information leak; (d) how many of the investigations in (c) were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, broken down by information leak; (e) how many of the investigations in (d) resulted in a conviction, broken down by information leak; and (f) what was the sentence imposed for each conviction in (e), broken down by information leak?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to applications for cannabis licences approved by Health Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency under the Cannabis Act and the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations: (a) how many licensed producers are structured within family trusts; (b) how many licensed producers have a criminal history; (c) what measures were taken to ensure there was no criminal history; (d) were the criminal histories of the parent companies of licensed producers analyzed; (e) how many licensed producers are associated with individuals with a criminal history; (f) how many parent companies of licensed producers are directly or indirectly associated with individuals and businesses with a criminal history; (g) how many licensed producers were reported by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (h) are the parent companies of licensed producers required to obtain a security clearance, and if so, how many parent companies of licensed producers are there; (i) what are the sources of financing of licensed producers, broken down by jurisdiction; (j) what is the detailed ownership structure of each licensed producer; and (k) what specific measures did Health Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency take to identify the true beneficiaries of licensed producers?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 28th, 2019]

With respect to the Paradise Papers affair, the fight against offshore tax non-compliance and aggressive tax planning: (a) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files are currently open at the Canada Revenue Agency; (b) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files have been sent to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; (c) how many taxpayers’ or Canadian companies’ files are linked to the marijuana industry; (d) how many employees are assigned to Paradise Papers files; (e) how many audits have been performed since the release of the Paradise Papers; and (f) how much has the Canada Revenue Agency recovered in total?

[Canada Revenue Agency, December 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, two years after the Panama papers scandal, the Liberals have yet to do anything to tackle international tax evasion.

If someone earns $35,000 a year and owes $200 to the government, the CRA is super efficient. However, if someone hides millions of dollars in tax havens, the agency is unable to do anything at all and drags its feet.

The minister may say that her plan is working, but in the past three years she has had nothing to show Canadians. There have been no convictions, no charges and no recoveries related to international tax evasion.

Why do the Liberals always let the rich off the hook so easily?

[Canada Revenue Agency, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, for the past three years, the Liberals have been talking about how hard they are working to fight tax evasion and tax havens, but nothing has changed and everyone knows it is just a smokescreen.

The Minister of National Revenue herself even accepted a donation from an influential Liberal whose name turned up in the paradise papers. Now we understand why she has not done anything. As they say, one does not bite the hand that feeds.

What message is the minister responsible for the CRA sending to the public and all taxpayers when she accepts money from individuals named in the paradise papers?

[Message from the Senate, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was more insightful and had quite a bit more depth than the bill itself.

What does she think about parliamentarians' responsibility to tell Canadians the truth? We must not take any intellectual shortcuts by telling half-truths or playing with words in order to fearmonger on certain issues. Some parliamentarians and some political parties around the world fearmonger, tell untruths or half-truths and play with words as part of their strategy for winning votes during an election campaign.

Does she not agree that it is also the responsibility of parliamentarians to tell the truth and to not play with words when speaking to Canadians? Canadians are not fools and they see parties' populist election campaign speeches for what they are.

[Customs Act, December 11th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, today, I am once again amazed at the Liberals' attitude. Once they took office, they did exactly the opposite of what they said they would when they were on this side of the House. That includes the Minister of Public Safety, who sat on this side of the House a few years ago and criticized the Conservatives' time allocation motions.

Was my colleague being honest at the time when he said that the government was being disrespectful to the House by moving time allocation motions, or was he misleading everyone because he knew full well that he was going to do exactly the same thing when he took office?

[Customs Act, December 11th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, as there seems to be a consensus, as my colleague claims, why exactly does the government find it necessary to move a time allocation motion to limit debate? With 30 minutes for questions and comments, 30 minutes for the ringing of the bells and 15 minutes for the vote, we lose one hour and 15 minutes.

Why is the minister taking the time to move time allocation if he believes he has the consensus of the House for his bill? What is the urgency and relevance of this kind of motion if he believes that everyone agrees with the bill?

[The Environment, December 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in early October, IPCC experts published an alarming report on the need to take immediate action to protect the environment. According to that report, it is not too late, but time is running out.

Another study also found that, if every country were to do what Canada is doing right now, global temperatures would rise by 5°C.

Nevertheless, the Liberals continue to focus on expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline and are using taxpayers' money to triple its capacity. Meanwhile, all the Conservatives can think about is bringing back energy east, which would be just as bad for the environment.

Fortunately, not everything is a bleak as the debates in the House between the Liberals and the Conservatives. I congratulate the thousands of Quebeckers who demonstrated in early November to ask Parliament to help our planet. Over 1,000 concerned citizens took to the streets in Sherbrooke to ask our governments to change course.

I promised these brave citizens that, if the government did not hear the call of the demonstrators who were speaking on behalf of our planet, then I would pass the message on to the House myself.

Obviously, the government has still not heeded the urgent call to help the planet. I am therefore asking the Liberals and the Conservatives to set aside their ideology and to finally do what it takes to save the only planet we have.

[Business of Supply, December 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, a riding not too far from Sherbrooke, for his contribution to the debate, even though we do not agree on much.

When I spoke to this motion, I spoke about the threat of a carbon tax bogeyman that the Conservatives keep tossing around. They brought it up almost every day between 2011 and 2015. My colleagues who were around at the time may remember the Conservatives bringing up this bogeyman every day, although they were, naturally, unsuccessful. Earlier, I was chided for too closely analyzing their political strategies, but it is clear that they were not successful in the 2015 election.

However, my colleague was known to be a rather progressive and pro-environment mayor. It is surprising to see him today, completely blinded by the Conservative anti-tax ideology, supporting a motion that is against climate action.

Can my colleague confirm that he previously favoured some form of carbon tax and that a carbon tax is a good way to combat climate change?