Sylvain Chicoine

[Veterans Hiring Act, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, the Veterans Hiring Act.

This bill corrects the problems with Bill C-11, which was introduced earlier this year or late last year. We had a first day of debate, but there were problems that the government corrected. In fact, it withdrew Bill C-11 and returned with a new version, Bill C-27.

Unfortunately, the government did not adequately consult groups of veterans about this bill. All too often, the government fails to consult. For example, with respect to the first nations education bill, very few aboriginal people were consulted even though the government has an obligation to do so. There was not enough consultation with respect to Bill C-11. Thus, the government came back with Bill C-27.

Despite what I would call a lack of professionalism on the part of the government, I am obviously pleased to rise and say that we will be supporting Bill C-27, introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because all measures to improve veterans' quality of life are important. In order to improve the career transition of our injured veterans, we will obviously support any measure such as this one.

However, as I said when asking the parliamentary secretary a question, I feel that, in some respects, this is a half measure to address the problems with the transition to civilian jobs, which too often is difficult for veterans.

Consequently, if we consider all the problems pointed out, mainly in the ombudsman's reports, it is very little. The government often tends to go for window dressing. However, upon closer inspection, the proposals are all too often half measures, which do not enhance our veterans' quality of life.

I am thinking of the changes made concerning career transition, but I will get back to that. They said there would be bigger budgets, but if we look at the details, at what was budgeted, this will help only a handful of veterans finish university. If we look at the changes announced to the funeral and burial program for veterans of modest means, the government really boosted funding for that. Not long ago, it was paying just over $3,000 to cover funeral costs for the neediest veterans, and now that amount has been increased substantially.

However, if we look at the eligibility criteria, those have not changed. For the very neediest veterans, those living below the poverty line and some others, it would be good to expand the eligibility criteria to really help more veterans. There are a lot of these half measures. On the surface, they can say they are helping veterans, but in reality, they are not helping a lot of people. That might be the case with this bill too.

After it came to power in 2006, the Conservative government passed the new veterans charter. Actually, it was passed that same year or a little before. They called the new charter a living document and said it would improve veterans' lives, especially for modern-day veterans. They knew that younger and younger veterans were coming home from Afghanistan wounded, so they had to do away with the old pension system and put more emphasis on incentives to participate in career transition programs. It was supposed to be a living document. It was kind of rushed through the process. They said they would adapt it over time as problems came up. Since then, however, only one small cosmetic change has been made, and that was in 2011. They improved the charter, but only a little.

It turns out that there are all kinds of problems with the new veterans charter. It is very disappointing that the government has turned its attention to this problem just once in nearly eight years. That is not very much. As the parliamentary secretary said, there is a review of the new veterans charter going on right now.

We will prepare a comprehensive report. I hope that the government will respond favourably to most, if not all of the recommendations because this new charter has a lot of problems. The government has to stop twiddling its thumbs when it comes to improving the new veterans charter. It has to come up with appropriate, concrete and comprehensive measures because there are far too many problems.

The new veterans charter is described as a living document. I would say that it is on life support and in desperate need of oxygen because it is weak and, as I was saying, full of problems.

The new charter was passed in 2006, and we expected it to be amended as problems arose. As we can see, the government has dropped the ball on improving the new charter.

Our troops suffered heavy losses during the mission in Afghanistan. To date, 158 deaths and more than 2,000 injured soldiers have been reported. This number could go up given that it sometimes takes years for the initial symptoms of PTSD to appear.

According to a recent study, 14% of our soldiers returned from Afghanistan injured, but it is thought that this number is actually much higher.

It is in this context that Parliament passed the new veterans charter, calling it a living document. However, it must be improved as soon as possible after we table our report, which we intend to do in a matter of days. The government must respond favourably to it by adopting appropriate measures.

That is what brings us to debating Bill C-27, which essentially seeks to give priority for public service jobs to serving and former members of the Canadian Forces who are released for medical reasons that are attributable to service.

If, during the hiring process, the veteran demonstrates the essential qualifications required, the Public Service Commission will have to appoint that person in absolute priority, ahead of employees who are considered surplus or on leave. These veterans will henceforth be in the highest category of hiring priority. That priority will be valid for a period of five years. Previously it was valid for two years. To be clear, it is five years after the soldier is released for medical reasons that are attributable to service.

A second measure in this bill would give members of the Canadian Forces who have accumulated more than three years of service the right to participate in an internal public service appointment process. Section 35.11 states that veterans who have been honourably released may, during a period of five years after their date of release, participate in this process, but they would not have priority.

Furthermore, subsection 39(1) of the Public Service Employment Act gives preference to World War II and Korean War veterans, among others, ahead of all Canadian citizens. A veteran is defined as someone who served at least three years in the Canadian Forces and was honourably discharged.

We will obviously see a resurgence of veterans who have preference in the appointment process over Canadian citizens. This preference will be valid for a period of five years. However, survivors of a veteran and former members of the Canadian Forces who served at least three years will not have access to that preference.

This is a noble gesture on the part of the government. However, like the measures it has taken previously, such as the Last Post Fund and the reimbursements for training and post-secondary education, these are half measures that will have little impact on the quality of life of most veterans.

There will be few jobs available in the public service in the short and medium term, since the public service is currently restructuring and undergoing budget cuts. The public service is being cut, and it will be a long time before a new crop of public servants is hired. For that reason alone, I do not think that this bill will help a lot of veterans.

With regard to priority access for medically released members of the Canadian Armed Forces, what will happen to veterans who are not released for medical reasons and who appeal the decision to VRAB? It can take three or four years before the board determines whether the injury is in fact related to the member's service. Is the government prepared to extend that five-year period? It can easily take three or four years after the member is released for VRAB to render a favourable decision, so the period of five years set out in the bill is a problem. This sort of thing happens fairly frequently. The five-year period must be extended so that veterans are not penalized by an initial unfavourable decision. If the department's decision is overturned by VRAB, the veteran must get an entitlement period of five years.

The Veterans Ombudsman made some comments in this regard on his blog. He said:

However, under the new legislation, the system will have to adjudicate an individual’s file to determine if the medical release is related to service or not. This could add additional red tape to the release process and potentially delay the ability to access priority hiring upon release.

Like the ombudsman, we are worried about this legislative uncertainty. Would it not be better to use the recognition of the link between the injury and the service to determine the accessibility and length of the priority entitlement? This could be done two ways: either the reason for release is designated "service-related medical release" or the link between the injury and the service is recognized by Veterans Affairs Canada or VRAB. Either way, the system remains consistent, some of the red tape can be avoided and we could ensure that veterans do not lose their entitlement priority.

This bill also creates categories of veterans, and we are against that approach. The NDP supports the principle of having a single category of veterans, rather than many categories. We believe that all veterans, regardless of which war they served in, whether it be a past war or a modern war, deserve the same status. They are all soldiers who served our country. We are against creating categories of veterans.

Veterans of the RCMP are not included in the bill and remain in the regulatory category. I think that a member of the RCMP who suffered a trauma and wanted to get out of the policing environment to start a new career could have benefited from priority hiring under this bill. Including veterans of the RCMP would have been a way of thanking them for their service and sacrifices. Only members of the Canadian Forces released for service-related medical reasons will have this priority entitlement. Unfortunately, others will not.

In addition, the bill amends the definition of veteran and specifies that the surviving spouse of a veteran is not eligible for the same hiring preference within the public service. The surviving spouse of a traditional veteran used to take priority over Canadian citizens. Why did the minister specifically make spouses of Canadian Armed Forces veterans ineligible? That is one question we have. The government likes to break veterans into distinct categories, which I have no choice but to oppose.

In this era of budget cuts, when massive numbers of public servants are losing their jobs, this bill may help veterans only in the long term. In the short term, I do not see how this could make for a better career transition for veterans who are given hiring preference within the public service. In this case, when there are massive layoffs, it will not help them.

This bill is a response to the government's lack of leadership on the issue of career transition.

It reacted by introducing this bill, but it did so during a time of budget cuts. I think the government needs to work harder to improve our veterans' lives and their transition to civilian life. They really need help. They need more than half measures.

From 2006 to 2011, about 2,000 veterans took advantage of this hiring priority. Of those, 1,024 veterans got jobs in the public service, and of those, 739 got jobs with National Defence. That is about three-quarters or 75% of all veterans who found work in the public service. In other words, they do not have access to many jobs outside of National Defence.

The situation at Veterans Affairs Canada is even more disastrous. During the five-year period between 2006 and 2011, only 24 veterans were hired at Veterans Affairs Canada. That is just 2% of all the jobs, which is very little considering that Veterans Affairs is probably one of the departments that could really benefit from hiring veterans because they have the experience and they know about the programs the department offers. It would seem to be an ideal match. I think that the minister and the department are not doing enough to recruit veterans within their own department.

The statistics for veterans finding work in the public service show that, other than National Defence and maybe Public Works and Government Services Canada, there are very few departments—almost none, in fact—that hire veterans. There has to be a shift in mentality in the public service and the departments so they recognize the skills that veterans have and make more room for them. There has to be a shift in mentality. This bill will not shift anyone's mentality, but it will help give priority to veterans in the public service. There has to be a shift in mentality so the departments do a better job of recognizing our veterans' skills.

According to the ombudsman, about 4,500 veterans sign up for rehabilitation services and vocational assistance. On average, 220 veterans get their names on the list for priority hiring, and 146 veterans, on average, get jobs in the public service that way. That is not a lot of people. Even with this bill, the numbers are likely to go down in the short term and possibly even in the medium term if departments do not end up hiring a lot of people in the medium term. That is not a lot. This bill is unlikely to have a significant impact on the majority of veterans; it will affect just a few of them.

These numbers also show that veterans previously did not have the skills or university training to obtain many of the jobs in the public service. As I was saying, this perhaps reflects lack of interest or lack of qualifications. This is something that needs to be addressed during the career transition. We must provide university training to veterans who are willing and able. This would go a long way in helping them find a new job in the public service.

In fact, veterans are required to accept a job in a field that does not necessarily interest them, but for which they have certain skills. The ombudsman also indicated that veterans are not given enough opportunities to start a new career. Veterans do not necessarily feel like continuing on with the same type of work they did when they were in the Canadian Forces. We must give them the ability to choose something other than what they know. This would also help veterans immensely during their career transition.

In closing, we will support this bill, but the government will certainly have to allay our concerns in committee. It will also have to make the necessary changes with regard to the entitlement period for veterans who dispute the reason they were released from the forces and win their case before VRAB, to ensure that they are not penalized.

We look forward to studying this bill in committee.

[Veterans Hiring Act, May 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-27. I do not share his rosy outlook, however.

He says that the government is working hard to improve the lives of veterans; however, more could be done. Bill C-27 is a step in the right direction, but it is still a half measure.

Can my colleague tell me if the government has done a study to determine how many veterans will find work in the public service thanks to this bill? In this era of cutbacks, there will not be a lot of public service jobs available in the next few years. There is also the fact that public servants often need a university degree. Injured veterans often do not have a degree.

I have a second question for my colleague. Veterans who have been recognized as having a non-service-related injury can appeal to VRAB, which may recognize their injury three or four years later. Does the member agree that the five-year entitlement period should start after the board decides to recognize their injuries?

[Veterans Affairs, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives cut services for veterans, then managed to find $100,000 to promote their tweets on Twitter. That is just indecent.

The tweets, mostly ministerial self-promotion, tend to be kind of ridiculous, barely relevant and written in dubious French. For example, in a tweet in which he meant to say how honoured and touched he was to pay tribute to the fallen at a Canadian war cemetery, the minister wrote, “Je suis honoré & touché pour rendre mes hommages au Cimetière de guerre canadien”. He actually wrote that he was paying tribute to the cemetery itself.

When will the minister realize that veterans are more important than retweets, hashtags and whatnot?

[Fair Elections Act, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

Hon. members opposite must surely be afraid of losing the next election. That is why they are in the process of implementing measures that will allow them to keep getting around the rules governing elections without being bothered by the Chief Electoral Officer. He will not have the power to do the necessary investigations or to compel witnesses to testify.

In addition, if there is another electoral fraud like last time, he will have to consult the Treasury Board in order to be able to hire a firm with the expertise to prepare a proper report. This is interfering in the work of an officer of Parliament. It is completely unjustifiable, it makes no sense, and it undermines the credibility of the Chief Electoral Officer.

The Conservatives are afraid of losing the next election.

[Fair Elections Act, May 13th, 2014]

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

That is one of the major problems with this bill. It is a strategy that the Conservatives borrowed from the Republicans in the United States and used during the last election. The Bush administration used this strategy in 2001. The Conservatives looked at this strategy and knew that it would work to call voters to discourage them and tell them that the polling station had moved, when that was not true, and send them in the wrong direction. One in three people who received that type of call did not vote because they thought the polling station was too far away, for instance.

After this scandal, Elections Canada showed that the Chief Electoral Officer did not have the power to investigate or compel witnesses to testify. He did not get the desired co-operation from the government and, as such, Elections Canada could prove only that the Conservatives' database was at the origin of this scandal.

[Fair Elections Act, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would describe today as a very dark day. In fact, it is the last day of debate on Bill C-23, the government's electoral “deform”, as we rightly refer to it.

This bill was not introduced with a view to better protecting our democracy and our electoral system. Changes are being made to benefit the Conservatives in the next election. Tactics include voter suppression and the ability to continue to get around the election rules without the slightest concern.

What the government is doing today is outrageous. It is steamrolling over the opposition parties. This is actually the first time in Canadian history that a government has used its majority to impose its views and anti-democratic changes, without coming to an agreement with anyone, with any of the opposition parties or members of civil society. Everyone is against this bill; that is unanimous. Seldom have we seen all segments of civil society join forces to speak so strongly against a bill.

The content of this bill is anti-democratic. In addition, true to form, the Conservatives trampled over and circumvented our Parliament's democratic procedures in the way they introduced and debated this bill in the House. Showing contempt for Canadian democracy, the Conservatives once again imposed time allocation motions, which means that debates were limited. In fact, this is the first time I have been able to speak to the bill. I have not been able to do so previously because debates on bills are constantly being limited. Some of my colleagues definitely would have been interested in speaking out against this terrible bill.

Furthermore, the Conservatives put an end to the committee's study of this electoral “deform” bill, even though half of the amendments proposed by the NDP were not even debated.

Furthermore, the first draft of this bill was extremely outrageous. This one is a bit better, but it is still outrageous. This shows that the government has no respect for its democratic institutions. It proposed amendments that elected members of Parliament themselves had submitted during the parliamentary committee's study. It wanted to change Canadian democracy by first studying this bill in the Senate. It is rather ironic that the government would propose amendments in the Senate and that an unelected chamber would make changes to our democracy. That is absolutely ridiculous. Furthermore, this shows what kind of respect this government has for its democratic institutions.

The Conservatives rejected the amendments that would have given investigators the tools they need to combat election fraud, that would have kept Elections Canada independent from government and that would have given the Chief Electoral Officer the right to encourage Canadians to vote.

The Minister of State for Democratic Reform did not even consult the CEO on this bill. He misled the House during question period. He indicated that he had consulted the CEO, but that was absolutely not true.

The minister has been going after Elections Canada for years, and more recently he has been going after the Chief Electoral Officer by undermining his credibility and attacking him, as he has done with all the officers of Parliament. That is absolutely outrageous and disgraceful on the part of a government.

The minister has been going after Elections Canada for years. He says that this agency is biased because it has criticized the Conservatives' non-compliance with election laws. They were caught with the in and out scandal. I want to explain to Canadians what that scandal involved. In Canada, each party has a maximum amount for election spending. They circumvented this maximum by diverting funds through riding associations that had $90,000 maximums but where the party had no chance of winning. These associations were made to pay invoices that should have been charged to the national party. The party was circumventing the law.

The Conservatives got caught and pleaded guilty. This bill will allow them to keep circumventing election laws without being concerned about the Chief Electoral Officer or the commissioner, even though he has some investigative powers. The Conservatives want to get rid of all of the measures so that they can keep bending the rules illegally without the slightest concern. We need to keep in mind that the Conservative database was used to send voters to the wrong polling station.

Instead of complying with election laws, the Conservatives decided to take direct aim at Elections Canada by limiting its investigative powers, even though they voted in favour of the motion we moved in 2012 that called for more investigative powers for the Chief Electoral Officer. Elections Canada's powers were completely eliminated, thus allowing the Conservatives to keep bending the rules without a care in the world.

Our party, all of the opposition parties and Canadians in general oppose this bill. Canadians from coast to coast voiced their disapproval. Faced with such a public outcry, the Conservatives had no choice but to back down on some fundamental aspects of the original bill.

We obtained a number of concessions, which proves that the NDP is a strong opposition, worthy of being the government in waiting. Soon, we will no longer be waiting because we will form the government in 2015. I would remind the House that in the wake of the robocall scandal, it was the NDP that demanded changes to the Elections Act, notably to strengthen the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer, not weaken them as the government is currently doing.

The NDP is there to protect Canadian democracy. We stand at the ready when the government attacks our democracy. We are there to make sure the government is accountable to Canadians.

One aspect of the bill that the government partially backed down on is the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to participate in public education campaigns to increase voter participation, which is plummeting. The government wanted to see those numbers drop even further in the next election so that it would increase its chances of getting re-elected.

The Chief Electoral Officer will no longer have the authority to educate Canadians about the importance of voting. From now on, the Chief Electoral Officer will only be able to publicize certain aspects of the voting process, namely, when and where to vote. Unfortunately, they are limited to just that. The Chief Electoral Officer will no longer be allowed to reach out to certain groups to help them encourage voter turnout among the people they represent.

We feel that public education is an essential function of the Chief Electoral Officer and that these changes will certainly not help boost voter turnout, but will instead have the opposite effect and lower turnout among young people, seniors and aboriginal groups living on reserves. All these groups will have more difficulty voting because, in a way, their right to vote will not be recognized.

Canada's Democracy Week, which was organized by Elections Canada, is a glaring example. From now on, Elections Canada will no longer be able to organize this important week to raise awareness about democracy.

Furthermore, the Chief Electoral Officer will have to ask the Treasury Board for permission to hire private companies to help in conducting an investigation or drafting reports like the report on the robocalls case. The government will be interfering in the work of an officer of Parliament, who must have complete independence from the government. The Treasury Board's control is unacceptable.

As I mentioned previously, one of the bill's main objectives is voter suppression. Someone using a voter information card as proof of address will be prevented from voting under this bill. That provision will create serious problems for Canadians who have difficulty providing proof of address when they go to vote.

Students, seniors and aboriginal communities are affected by this change.

Since I do not have a lot of time left, I just want to say that we have been strongly opposed to this bill from the start and will continue to be until the end. In a few hours, we will continue to denounce this dishonest strategy the government is using to try to secure its re-election.

[Fair Elections Act, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague for his speech.

He spoke about a number of egregious aspects of this bill. We must remind Canadians that this is the first time in Canadian history that a party in power is forcing through a democratic reform bill that opposition parties and civil society do not want. The government's actions with respect to this electoral deform are quite simply disgraceful.

This bill is disgraceful because it will suppress the vote of people who are not partisan, such as seniors, students and aboriginal people. The government is trying to prevent them from voting by refusing to allow them to use the voter card, which is ridiculous. Nothing is being done to promote democracy or to encourage Canadians to get out and vote. At the same time, the government is encouraging shameful and undemocratic practices such as robocalls, which served to irritate voters and discourage them from voting.

This bill will not do anything to support the Chief Electoral Officer in his investigations. On the contrary, it will give him fewer powers. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that, since the party will be able to continue to cheat, as it did before, without being bothered by the Chief Electoral Officer, since he will not have the powers to investigate fraud.

[Grenadiers de Châteauguay Hockey Team, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House to recognize the outstanding performances of the Grenadiers de Châteauguay, a Midget AAA hockey team that played in the Telus Cup finals.

I would like to point out that, with hard work and perseverance, our young people were able to accomplish great things this year.

The Grenadiers first won the provincial Jimmy Ferrari Cup for the second time in nine seasons. That victory was their ticket to the national tournament in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Through the hard work and perseverance of the entire team, they made it to the tournament finals on March 27. It was a thrilling game that went into triple overtime, but unfortunately they lost 4-3 to the Prince Albert Mintos.

I would like to congratulate coach Bruce Richardson's entire team, the volunteers and the parents for their passion and their dedication to our young players. I would also like to single out the performances of Étienne Montpetit, Danick Crête, Tyler Hylland and Martin-Olivier Cardinal.

Congratulations to the entire team on winning this silver medal with a golden performance. The entire Châteauguay area is behind you and says, “Bravo, Grenadiers.”

[Tax Evasion, April 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Motion No. 485, moved by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, which deals with tax evasion through the use of tax havens.

The use of tax havens robs the Canadian tax base of billions of dollars every year. The direct impact of tax evasion is felt by all Canadians, because the government has to do without significant income that could be used to improve services and social programs provided to all Canadians.

OXFAM International's 2013 estimates illustrate how very serious the problem is. According to that organization, at least $18,500 billion is hidden by individuals who shelter their money in tax havens around the world. That represents a loss of more than $156 billion in tax revenue for governments.

In Canada, independent estimates have indicated that the tax revenue lost to offshore tax havens might be somewhere between $5 billion and $7.8 billion a year. Obviously, it is a known problem. Nonetheless, observers note that the problem keeps growing.

A lobby group by the name of Canadians for Tax Fairness indicates that Canadians have now invested $59 billion in Barbados, some $30 billion in the Cayman Islands and $20 billion in Luxembourg. Those are the top three tax havens that harbour Canadian capital. This topic is very relevant, especially given that we are debating this motion as Canadians are in the process of filing their income tax returns for 2013.

Canadians contribute honestly, as do small and medium-sized businesses. Canadian middle-class taxpayers and small and medium-sized businesses are carrying the majority of the tax burden in Canada. They are the ones who will pay the most taxes, while others hide their money in tax havens. Again, it is a question of justice and fairness for all Canadian taxpayers.

However, the fight against tax evasion is definitely not a priority for the Conservative government. It has demonstrated that on a number of occasions. In fact, since the Conservatives came to power, the number of investigators assigned to combatting tax evasion has dropped. Anything for a balanced budget, no matter what the cost or the consequences. The Conservatives have slashed the Canada Revenue Agency's budget by about $250 million, which hinders the agency's ability to effectively hunt down tax evaders.

The government will try to convince us that their tactical anti-tax evasion squad is the answer. However, what they are not saying is that their squad is actually the result of a reallocation of previously announced funding to create a team of just 10 to 12 people tasked with finding tax cheats. That will not fix the problem.

I think that we need to determine the scope of the problem and then implement the measures required to effectively address this significant issue. That will take a certain amount of dedication, which our Conservative colleagues do not seem to have.

Given the scope of the problem, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord moved this motion, which calls on the federal government to thoroughly study and assess the amount of tax revenues lost to tax havens.

This motion builds on the official opposition's recommendations during the Standing Committee on Finance's study on tax fraud and the use of tax havens. Unfortunately, as usual, the Conservatives flat out rejected our recommendations. I believe the NDP is the only party that truly has the will and the determination to win the fight against the use of tax havens.

Unfortunately, Canadians cannot count on the current government, just as they could not count on its predecessors. Every one of them has allowed the situation to degenerate. As I said, the problem is getting worse.

Why have they not done anything? The losses are tremendous, and taxpayers are the ones paying the price.

Taxpayers will have to pay a bigger share of the cost of government programs and services. Because of the loss of revenue, the government is cutting departmental budgets. That additional revenue could have maintained or saved many programs and services. This is terribly irresponsible of the government.

Billions of dollars are being lost every year, and sadly, the government does not seem to think this is a priority. We do not want an estimate that fails to acknowledge the full extent of the problem. We want the government to measure, as precisely as possible, how much tax revenue Canada is losing because of the use of tax havens. That is the only way to determine the extent of tax evasion in Canada. The government's failure to do anything about this problem is appalling.

The United Kingdom, the United States and even Australia, to name just these three allied countries, published official estimates of how much these tax havens are costing them. Why does the government not conduct a similarly thorough study in order to effectively address the problem? This shows that the government is doing absolutely nothing to assess or combat the use of tax havens. Unfortunately, the government has no intention of carrying out such a study. How can we seriously address a problem if the government refuses to properly assess it?

In order to determine how much tax evasion is going on, the motion calls on the Canada Revenue Agency to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the information necessary to prepare an estimate.

The motion also calls on the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide estimates of the marginal revenue of additional Canada Revenue Agency resources in the area of tax evasion.

Finally, the motion requires the Auditor General to evaluate, on a regular basis, the success of the Canada Revenue Agency in prosecuting and settling cases of tax evasion.

The NDP believes that the Government of Canada is responsible for protecting its tax base. This is a matter of fairness and justice for all taxpayers. Everyone has to do their fair share, and those who use tax havens should not be allowed to avoid paying taxes on the money they are diverting through such means.

The motion is just the first step in the pressure the official opposition is going to put on the Conservatives so that they truly address this problem and work to combat tax evasion.

The government should be doing the opposite of what it is doing now. It should be ensuring that the Canada Revenue Agency has all the resources it needs to prevent tax evasion and, if necessary, investigate and prosecute cases of tax evasion. Ultimately, the government needs to take responsibility and ensure that the tax system is fair and equitable for all Canadian taxpayers.

The NDP will hound the government until it properly represents the interests of all Canadians and gives the Canada Revenue Agency the resources it needs to effectively combat the use of tax havens. That is this government's duty. Unfortunately, we cannot help but notice that it is failing in that duty.

[Veterans, April 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the new veterans charter has major shortcomings. There are many problems with the delivery of services to veterans and the government knows it. Instead of helping, the Conservatives have decided to ignore the dozens of recommendations in recent reviews and are simply doing nothing. To add insult to injury, the Conservatives are disputing their requests in court.

Why is the minister spending public money and energy in court instead of providing our veterans the benefits and care they deserve?