Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. One of the questions I ask myself most often when I hear the Liberals talk about the middle class is just how sincere the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are. They talk about middle-class people and they say they want to help them, when both of them are very far removed from the experiences of the middle class, particularly when we know that the Prime Minister spends his free time with billionaires.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the sincerity of the words we hear from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, a man who comes straight from Bay Street, when it comes to the help they want to offer the middle class and their understanding of the day-to-day lives of middle-class Canadians.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I share his feelings about the urgency of reviewing the Income Tax Act in its entirety. Ignorance of the law is no excuse; that is the very essence of our society under the rule of law. Everyone is supposed to know the law. In our legal system, we assume that this is the case.

The Income Tax Act, however, is 3,000 pages long and is relatively complex, as my colleague has just explained so well. Even tax experts cannot claim to understand the act in its entirety, with its 3,000 pages and thousands of sections.

In addition, we are witnessing major technological changes today; in a few seconds, we can transfer funds from one country to another, from one branch of a company to another. This is what we are seeing at present all over the world; the profits of multinational corporations are reported in countries other than the ones where the actual economic activities are going on.

Can my colleague comment on this aspect of the new ways of the world and tell us whether there are solutions to this problem?

[U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban, January 31st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I was surprised by the government's tone in this debate.

The government is talking about the 10,000 refugees that it promised would arrive before December 31. How many refugees did it succeed in bringing to Canada by December 31? Approximately 10,000. It was simply a realistic promise to say that 10,000 refugees would be brought to Canada by December 31. The government promised that 25,000 refugees would be brought here. The 25,000 arrived three months later in 2016. I hope that the government will change its tone. It is not really the tone that I was hoping to hear today.

I am wondering whether my colleague thinks that the ideal response would be to compensate for the United States' decision by welcoming more refugees to Canada, thus sending the international community a clear message that, if our neighbour and ally does not want to take in any more refugees, we will compensate for that and meet our international obligations. We are going to ensure that our country takes a more active role in protecting refugees if our neighbour does not want to do so.

Is this not the time to compensate and send a strong message like that to the international community?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, January 31st, 2017]

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

Does the member realize that the supervised consumption site model also includes access to detox programs to help people break their addictions? That is part of the model. These facilities offer programs that give people the professional support they need to battle their addictions.

Does my colleague recognize that this is part of what supervised consumption sites offer? Does he recognize that, when these programs are available at supervised consumption sites, and when people can go to these sites rather than be relegated to the streets as they are in all but one of our Canadian communities, it is easier for them to access the professional services that can help them overcome their addictions?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, January 31st, 2017]

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

If there is one issue on which I do not have a definite opinion, it is the legalization of simple possession, if nothing else, of all drugs in Canada. He talked about that in the media and again here in the House. This draws on what other countries are doing. As I said, if there is one issue on which I do not have a firm opinion, this is it.

Can the member tell us more about whether these measures will truly help reduce drug use, which is the ultimate goal that everyone in the House wants to achieve because we value health and we want our communities and our youth to be drug- and addiction-free?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, January 31st, 2017]

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

I have trouble understanding the Conservatives' stance on the fundamental issue of supervised injection sites. Do they support the establishment of more than one site, a site other than the one we already know in Vancouver?

When the Conservatives were in power, they passed a bill allowing the establishment of supervised injection sites, but it was clear that the unstated objective was to make it as difficult as possible to create and open new sites.

I have a hard time understanding their position today. My colleague talked about the benefits of supervised injection sites. I would therefore like to know whether the Conservatives are now in favour of opening and setting up additional supervised injection sites.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

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

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to the enforcement of the Income Tax Act and the Criminal Code, since January 1, 2006: (a) how many prosecutions have been initiated under section 239 of the Income Tax Act; (b) how many prosecutions have been initiated under section 163.2 of the Income Tax Act; (c) how many files in (a) and (b) involved (i) accounting firms, (ii) tax experts, (iii) chartered accountants; (d) of all the files in (c), how many led to convictions; (e) how many prosecutions have been initiated under section 245 of the Income Tax Act; (f) how many of the cases in (e) led to convictions, and what were the amounts recovered; (g) how many accounting firms, tax experts and chartered accountants were prosecuted under section 22 of the Criminal Code; (h) how many firms and people in (g) were found guilty; and (i) what sentences were imposed for each firm or person listed in (h)?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to the Foreign Income Verification Statement (Form T1135) declarations submitted by Canadian taxpayers to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), since January 1, 1998: (a) how many Canadian taxpayers have submitted a T1135 form to the CRA, broken down by year and by taxpayer type, that is, (i) individual, (ii) corporation, (iii) partnership, (iv) trust; and (b) how many penalties for failure to declare foreign income have been charged to Canadian taxpayers, broken down by year and taxpayer type, that is, (i) individual, (ii) corporation, (iii) partnership, (iv) trust?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s Offshore Tax Informant Program (CRA) (OTIP), since its creation in 2014: (a) what have the CRA’s operating costs for this Program been; (b) how many leads have been provided under OTIP; (c) of these leads, how many resulted in audits; (d) what sums were recovered by the CRA as a result of OTIP; (e) what was the amount of each award given to OTIP informants; and (f) what percentage of the amounts recovered did the awards to OTIP informants represent?