Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to come back to something that has been mentioned several times in this debate, and that is the fact that Bill C-50 is completely pointless.

This bill seeks to publish the names of people who participated in events where they paid $1,500 to get access to ministers and the Prime Minister, when their names will be published one day or another anyway. As my colleagues are well aware, the names of people who donate over $200 are already published on the Elections Canada website.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that this bill seems to be just a smokescreen to give the Liberals talking points since it seeks to do something that is already being done, namely, publish the names of people who donated over $200?

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague completely missed the point that his Prime Minister was trying to make when he said that there would be no preferential access or even the appearance of preferential access to ministers and government in return for donations to the Liberal Party.

The member said several times that his party follows all the rules, but although that may be true, his party is not honouring the solemn promise the Prime Minister made to Canadians. That is the problem, and that is the issue that my colleague did not want to address. The Prime Minister set a different standard and made rules that are different from those set out in the Canada Elections Act.

Can my colleague comment on the standard that the Prime Minister solemnly promised to uphold? The Prime Minister promised that there would be no preferential access or even the appearance of preferential access to government. If the member thinks that paying $1,500 to get access to the Prime Minister does not give the appearance of preferential access, then I would like him to explain how he defines preferential access.

[Canada Revenue Agency, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her response.

In any event, I would like to come back to another matter. We learned recently that a tax information exchange agreement has been reached with the Cook Islands, and this has been roundly criticized by several experts in the field. Experts agree that these tax information exchange agreements do not achieve the lofty aims they are said to achieve, namely, facilitating the exchange of information and strengthening the fight against tax evasion. On the contrary, experts are saying that these agreements facilitate tax avoidance and tax evasion and that they merely make something that is illegal today legal tomorrow. That is exactly how the experts described them.

Can my colleague respond to those criticisms regarding tax information exchange agreements, and specifically the one reached with the Cook Islands, which will be signed shortly?

[Canada Revenue Agency, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to pick up on a question that I asked during question period. This is an opportunity for me to push a little harder for some answers. We always hope for answers during question period, but adjournment debates give us a little more time to dig a little deeper.

I am hoping for some answers that are a little more detailed and less repetitive than what we have been getting from the Minister of National Revenue. Maybe I will have better luck with the parliamentary secretary. I hope she will not do what her colleague did, which was read his prepared response before he even heard the question.

Having said that, I would like to talk about the KPMG affair, which I asked the Minister of National Revenue about in the House of Commons. I asked her a specific question about whether new criminal charges would be laid, and we hope they will, against those who clearly tried to hide money from the Canada Revenue Agency. These people deposited large sums of money on the Isle of Man, a notorious tax haven with very low corporate tax rates. They hid that money on purpose to avoid paying their fair share of taxes here in Canada. The strategy was set up in the early 2000s and was used by wealthy Canadian families. Fortunately, the scheme was discovered and, thanks to a number of media outlets, some of those taxpayers were even identified.

The problem in all this is that although we know the identity of some of these taxpayers, the Canada Revenue Agency may know of others that the public is not aware of. We hope to get more names from KPMG, the firm that set up the scheme and provided assistance. We hope that once the CRA has these names it will hand out real penalties and be tough on these people who were caught red-handed evading taxes and defrauding the agency.

People who commit this type of fraud defraud all Canadians. When some people decide not to pay their fair share, then all the other taxpayers have to pay a bit more to get the services that they expect from their government.

These people have still not been punished. Worse yet, there were secret deals between the Canada Revenue Agency and these taxpayers, which let them off the hook. They were asked to pay a certain sum of money to bring down the penalty. They were then told that the matter would be dropped and they would be as free as a bird. These are the secret deals that the media reported on. We saw documents signed by Ms. Henderson, a manager at CRA.

During the question period I am referring to, I asked the minister to tell me when there would be criminal charges and when the matter would be handed over to the director of public prosecutions so that he could lay charges for fraud and tax evasion against the taxpayers who used the KPMG scheme.

I not only asked what would be done, but I also asked whether the minister would commit to truly seeing this through. Unfortunately she made no such commitment. She did not make any promises. This is an opportunity for the parliamentary secretary to make a clear commitment regarding criminal charges against KPMG clients.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The end of his speech reminds us of the Prime Minister’s experience in the House; it is somewhat limited.

What does my colleague think about the news reports that the individual who was approached to be the new Commissioner of Official Languages was too partisan to be a senator but not to be the Commissioner of Official Languages? What signal does that send to those interested in an officer of Parliament position, be it the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Commissioner of Lobbying, Privacy Commissioner, Information Commissioner, parliamentary budget officer or Chief Electoral Officer?

When the Prime Minister’s Office tells candidates that since they are too partisan to be a senator, they will find them an officer of Parliament position, what message does that send?

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his constructive input in this debate.

I am wondering if he thinks that when we appoint officers of Parliament, we have to distinguish between these appointments and all other appointments. Throughout the debate, we heard the government talk about the new appointment process that really applies to all appointments. This can include appointments to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, the boards of directors of airports or ports, or the Parole Board of Canada. There is therefore a very wide range of Governor in Council appointments, which cover a vast array of different positions. In my opinion, although they should be subject to different examination, officers of Parliament will go through the same process.

I think it is absolutely necessary to take the partisan background of a candidate into consideration. Would we appoint Stéphane Dion or Jean Chrétien to the position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner? I think it goes without saying that although they may be the most qualified of all candidates, the fact that they are still close to and very indebted to the Liberal Party would present a problem for a position such as the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Does the member think we should use a different lens in the case of officers of Parliament? Does he believe that non-partisanship should be a non-negotiable condition of an appointment?

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his most appropriate remarks.

My question is about the risks associated with other potential appointments to fill vacant commissioner positions that will need to be filled in the coming months. If the process remains as it is now, there is a risk that the incumbents will be seen as partial and partisan. How might this influence the credibility of these institutions and the reports produced by these officers of Parliament?

Can the hon. member talk about the risks associated with maintaining a process that appears to be broken?

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the main problem is that the government did not fully understand the real intent of this motion. The explanation that I have heard so far is that the Liberals think we want a veto over appointments, which is completely false.

That is not what the motion says. What the motion asks is that a subcommittee review the applications and propose one to the House. Ultimately it is the House that will always make the final decision.

I wish to clarify this for my Liberal colleagues, who seem to have forgotten or misunderstood it. It is a comprehension problem that can certainly be resolved with the debate today.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recall what my colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt said yesterday. He spoke about the spirit that should guide Parliament when we are working, discussing and debating issues. This work should be constructive.

The best example of this, today, is certainly the work of my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He put forward a clear and simple proposal, which included similar examples from elsewhere in the world. He is even willing to work with all the parties to ensure that, ultimately, when we vote, we will have as much support as possible in the House. It is very commendable of him to agree to work with all the parties. Indeed, finding a solution is of utmost importance.

In my opinion, all members of the House intend to avoid at all costs a situation like this from happening again when appointing other officers such as the Commissioner of Official Languages, Chief Electoral Officer, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or Lobbying Commissioner. I think it is even more important now to clarify the consultation process, which the Liberals botched in the case of the official languages commissioner, to make sure that a situation like this does not happen again.

I applaud his work with all the parties to, as our colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt said, create a House in which the members work together and make compromises, because each person raises different aspects. I think we could all set partisan politics aside and agree on logical things.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when I had to interrupt my speech that I started before question period and the vote, I was talking about the context in which we find ourselves regarding the appointment of officers of Parliament, specifically that of the Commissioner of Official Languages. In the end the nominee withdrew her candidacy, but it became clear that there are a number of things to consider when someone like Ms. Meilleur is nominated to become an officer of Parliament.

In this case, it seemed that her political affiliations may have played a role in her appointment. She tried to get around the process by going directly to PMO operatives. She spoke openly about her appointment and had even asked to be appointed to the Senate. Apparently she was told that to be a senator she had to be completely impartial, but she was told she could be offered the official languages commissioner position.

This proves that the government does not believe that impartiality is a criterion for becoming commissioner of official languages. We might have expected the opposite to be true, that the position of official languages commissioner requires complete impartiality.

Unfortunately, that is not what happened, and that is why, today, we are debating a motion that seeks to remedy the situation. In that regard, since the beginning of the day, the government has been telling us that everything is fine. As the song says, “Don't worry, be happy”. The government is saying that there is no problem here and that we should concern ourselves with other things. However, this is such a serious problem that we are worried that what happened with the appointment of the official languages commissioner will happen again when other commissioners and officers of Parliament are appointed, as they will be in the near future. There is a long list of appointments that need to be made.

We are not just an opposition party. We are also a party that proposes solutions. In this case, we are proposing a mechanism that will allow for real consultation. One of the biggest problems we had with Ms. Meilleur's appointment was that consultations were held only after the choice was already made. However, the law is clear. It requires the government to consult the leaders of the parties of the House of Commons before appointing an official languages commissioner. In this case, letters were sent to the leaders of the two recognized opposition parties of the House after the decision had already been made. It was not to consult them, but rather to inform them of the decision that had been made.

Obviously, the government did not comply with the law. That is why my colleague from Drummond and other Canadians, including Yvon Godin, former MP and official languages critic, have filed complaints. Obviously, Ms. Meilleur's appointment process did not comply with the Official Languages Act. The law is clear. The government must absolutely hold consultations before making an appointment. However, in this case, the parties were not consulted until afterwards, and they were not even really consulted. They were informed of the decision once it was already a done deal.

That is why we want to remedy the situation by creating a subcommittee of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that will meet on an ad hoc basis when an appointment is to be approved. I would also like to clarify something that seems to be confusing my colleagues on the other side of the House. Although the committee will hear the candidates and make a decision, ultimately, it is the two chambers that will make the final decision.

If the committee meets with candidates and agrees on the best one to fill an officer of Parliament position, that appointment will have to be approved by both chambers.

There has been much confusion in the House on this point. The members thought that Parliament as a whole would no longer have the prerogative of selecting and approving the appointments, and that only the small committee, made up of a few members of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, could do that. Nothing could be more wrong. The motion is clear, and we are prepared to clarify it further, to make sure that the Liberals are satisfied that the decision will lie with the House of Commons as a whole.

I think it is important to make a distinction. The government is fond of putting all Governor in Council appointments in the same basket. In my opinion, however, a sharp distinction must be made between Governor in Council appointments in general and appointments of officers of Parliament, who must absolutely demonstrate non-partisanship, independence, and impartiality. That goes without saying, since they work not for the government, but for Parliament, that is, for all parliamentarians in both chambers. It is therefore obvious that a different and more rigorous process should be put in place to ensure that the appointees have the confidence of everyone here and in the other place.

I will be happy to answer questions from my colleagues who are in need of clarification.