Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her reply, but I did not once hear the name of the Swiss bank UBS, which I referred to in my question.

I said that, as part of its scheme in Switzerland, UBS helped rich multimillionaires hide their money from the tax man. In Canada, no one even got a slap on the wrist, whereas in the United States, UBS and the rich Americans who hid their money from the tax man were given harsh penalties.

My question was very simple. I know that my time is almost up, but I will ask the question again. In the specific case of UBS, why did we ignore the information provided by a whistleblower? The result is that only 3,000 Canadians made voluntary disclosures, and none of them were even prosecuted for their illegal activity.

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this evening. I want to begin by congratulating my colleague on her appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. I hope to have frank, honest, and unscripted discussions with her in the House, and that we will be able to exchange ideas and come up with solutions to the problems Canada has been trying to fix for some time, although they have gotten even worse lately and have been in the news, specifically, tax evasion, the use of tax havens, and aggressive tax avoidance.

Not so long ago, I asked the Minister of National Revenue a question about an extremely important file regarding the Swiss bank UBS. That bank made headlines a lot in the mid and late 2000s, and I also raised the issue with one of my colleagues.

What happened was that a whistleblower tipped off the U.S. government and other governments about a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Swiss bank UBS and wealthy individuals including Canadians and Americans. Rich people around the world were hiding vast sums of money there to avoid paying taxes and grow their money. They were turning a profit with that money, which was invested all over the world but primarily in Switzerland. They did not declare those profits to Canadian or U.S. tax agencies.

It was similar to the KPMG scheme, which was discovered later. The U.S. meted out harsh penalties, but Canada was more lenient with the fraudsters. That is why the cases are similar if not exactly the same. The United States recovered millions of dollars in taxes from those rich American clients in addition to imposing very severe penalties on UBS totalling some $800 million U.S.

However, when the whistleblower gave the Canada Revenue Agency a list of names of Canadians who were involved in the scandal, nothing was done. The CRA turned a blind eye to those documents and later, in 2013, it finally received 3,000 voluntary disclosures from Canadians who decided themselves to report the amounts that they had hidden in previous years. That is how the government recovered approximately $270 million. However, the whistleblower said that Canada could have recovered up to a billion dollars since nearly $6 billion in assets were being held by UBS.

Why then is preferential treatment being given again, this time to UBS clients, when the Americans took the lead and cracked down on tax frauds and those who helped them, like banks and tax experts? Why is the government being so nice to fraudsters?

[Supreme Court Act, March 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the bill sponsored by my colleague from Drummond, whom I know well and really like.

I know how well-intentioned he is when it comes to the initiative that he has brought before the House and that we are debating here today. I will have a chance to discuss it in more detail at a later date.

Nevertheless, I want to commend him on his extremely important bill. This initiative was previously led by our colleague, Yvon Godin, whom we have all commended, just as I wish to do now, because he did extraordinary work and passionately defended this call for bilingualism in the Supreme Court.

I think it is time to enshrine in law the requirement that Supreme Court judges be bilingual. If we can do so for officers of Parliament, as we did in the 41st Parliament, I do not see why Supreme Court justices, the judges of the highest court in the land, should not also be required to be bilingual, and I do not see any good reason the government could possibly give to disagree.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention in the debate. In light of what we heard from the government side, I was wondering whether the hon. member thinks this is nothing more than a smokescreen or a charade. The government claims it is keeping an election promise, but it is creating a committee that could not be weaker or less independent from the government.

Although the government promised a committee of parliamentarians, this is just a half measure. This is just an attempt to keep an election promise to the extent possible. However, it seems like the government is not really interested in moving in this direction and truly creating an independent committee that can do its work properly, given the amendments the government proposed today in order to revert to the first version of Bill C-22, which was too weak in the opposition's view.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 8th, 2017]

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

I would like to ask her a question regarding the message this government is sending with these amendments at report stage, not only to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but also to other parliamentary committees that are tasked with studying government bills.

Acting in good faith, committees study bills and propose amendments. When amendments are passed in committee, one would have to assume it is because they improve the bill. The committee then sends the bill back to the House with amendments. Now, suddenly, the government is back pedalling. In fact, it is reneging on several amendments at report stage and removing them from the bill.

What message does this send to the other committees that will be called upon to examine other government bills and that might face the same tactic when the bills are returned to the House?

What message does this send about the important work that committees do, and not just the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 8th, 2017]

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

With regard to the work that was done in committee, it is not unprecedented, but it is still rather rare for such changes to be made when a bill comes back to the House after being examined in committee.

We are talking about a committee with a majority of government members. I assume that they examined the bill in good faith. The committee proposed amendments to the bill to improve it. We expect the committees to improve bills when they examine them. I thought that that was what the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security did. However, when the bill came back to the House, the government undid most of the work that was done in committee.

Does the member think that government will show so little consideration for the work of committees going forward? What message does this send to all of the committees that examine government bills and that will be sending bills on other subjects back to the House?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

However, I found the attack against us rather odd. He said that we move motions, but I have lost track of how many motions the Conservatives have moved to date. What does that mean? Are the Conservatives planning to let us take their turn when the time comes to introduce motions because they no longer want to do so and they think it is unnecessary and that motions serve no purpose in the House? I look forward to them letting us take over their opposition day. That would be great because there are certainly very specific things we would like to ask the government to do.

I am even more surprised that he is accusing us of wanting to take money from fraudsters to pay for more social and government programs. He is accusing us of wanting to do that. I am rather surprised to be attacked in that way because we do indeed want everyone to pay their fair share. We want fraudsters to pay their share and to stop evading taxes because that would allow Canada to continue to offer quality services.

What is his ideology? Does he want us to continue the race to the bottom? Does he want all of the countries in tax competition to participate in a race to the bottom by offering tax breaks left and right and lowering taxes until there are no more taxes and no more public services? Is that his ideology?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, this allows me to answer my colleague.

No, I do not want to get rid of job creators. I just want everyone in Canada to pay their fair share. For everyone to pay their fair share, for the average taxpayer to pay their taxes every year, and the rich to also pay their fair share every year seems to be a foreign concept to the Conservatives. We might say that it is a concept that escapes them. It might be an ideological problem on the Conservatives' part.

In any event, during their reign, we also saw that they actively participated in the race to the bottom. Global tax competition is a race to the bottom. Everyone takes turns and one day, there will be no more taxes anywhere in the world. Is that the Conservatives' ideology?

Can my colleague be honest and say that his ultimate goal is to eliminate all taxes and therefore all public services in Canada?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's opposition to the motion comes as no surprise because when I look at the Conservatives' record on fighting tax evasion, the numbers speak volumes.

I am very eager to see if the numbers keep declining like that. In 2006-07, the Canada Revenue Agency referred 214 cases to its criminal investigations program. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada was then able to secure convictions against 213 taxpayers.

In 2015-16, 17 cases were referred to the criminal investigations program and taxpayers were convicted. The number of cases went down from 214 to 17, and the number of convictions from 213 to 50. That was on the Conservatives' watch. The main reason has to be the Conservatives' massive cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency. Those cuts prevented the CRA from following up on many cases and getting convictions.

The numbers took a nosedive under the Conservatives. There were fewer convictions every year, less money was recovered, and fewer fines were imposed. The numbers speak volumes.

What does the member think of the Conservatives' record on this?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief.

I am surprised to hear the members opposite say that giving amnesty might be appropriate, when we are talking about files involving obvious and blatant tax fraud.

There is no doubt about it in the case of KPMG; it is clear. However, if we look at the figures, we see that since 2006, not one charge has been filed under section 163.2 of the Income Tax Act. That section allows for prosecution for misleading tax plans, in other words, prosecuting those who engage in tax planning.

Does my colleague think that accounting firms like KPMG should also be prosecuted, along with the individuals who use their schemes?