Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to see my NDP colleagues seize upon this issue, because it is important to fight tax evasion. It is important to fight the fraudsters who think they have all the rights and can do what they want.

At the same time, on the other side we have a government that is laughing at the population and the people. Solutions are proposed, such as the bill tabled by the Bloc Québécois designed to combat tax evasion, but no one is interested in them. After that, we hear that, in the KPMG case, preferential treatment and amnesties are being handed out. Basically, they are continuing to encourage people who do not need to pay for their crimes, because it is indeed a crime to circumvent the law in this way.

However, the Canada Revenue Agency does not seem to be doing its job, and the federal government seems to be standing in our way. This morning, we in the Bloc Québécois asked for something. We asked to have the information forwarded to Revenu Québec as soon as a case is opened and even before it wraps up. That way, should the federal agency be found to be complacent, Revenu Québec can do its job and and collect the money if Canada does not.

Would my colleague like to support us on this?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about fairness. In French, we might use the words justice or équité or traitement équitable.

I wonder whether my colleague thinks it is fair to vote against a bill that puts an end to tax avoidance and tax evasion using tax havens like Barbados. The Canada Revenue Agency is also granting amnesty to fraudsters who come up with shell games to avoid having to pay income tax.

In his speech, my colleague talked about reducing income tax. Not too long ago, Alain Deneault wrote a book in which he asked whether Canada was becoming a tax haven.

Transforming Canada into a tax haven, letting poor people and ordinary people suffocate and not making the rich pay taxes: is that the Liberal strategy for combatting tax evasion?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member, obviously part of the government, is praising the Liberal government’s plan.

Last year, in that plan, about $400 million was announced for going after money that should have been paid to the government. However, when investments are made in the Canada Revenue Agency, for example, to go after money, does that mean that tax havens and fraud artists are being targeted, or are hairdressers, bartenders and restaurant operators also going to be targeted?

The government says it is very interested in the middle class, and we can see that. When we want to go after the big fish, as the motion introduced by the Bloc concerning Barbados was intended to do, the Liberals stand in our way. At the international, the big fish like KPMG get an amnesty.

In our opinion, the government should pay more attention to the wealthier people and go after the big fish. Essentially, if the government of Canada does not do its job, it should let Quebec do it.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, personally I find this motion presented by the NDP today very interesting. I listened to the speech given just a while ago by my colleague from Vancouver East and it seems to me that this motion focused on tax evasion, specifically the KPMG case, on the investigations that need to be launched and also on the tacit agreements that allow companies to walk away without paying any penalties. Furthermore, KPMG is not going to be penalized for its practices.

What I am trying to understand here is why we are lumping other things in with it. Stock options and corporate taxes are also mentioned. I completely agree with my colleague that stock options and corporations should be taxed more. However, there is really no link between those issues and tax havens. That is why I am trying to understand if we may be getting things confused.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the NDP for the motion they presented today because I believe tackling tax havens and tax evasion is important.

We also need to fight organizations like KPMG which, as a result of complacency, opportunity and greed, choose to help their clients by enabling them to bypass the tax system. Because they are fortunate and have the means, these clients can tell themselves that everything is fine; they do not need to pay taxes, let the poor take care of it.

In the past, the Bloc Québécois tabled a bill, which later became a motion, to stop tax evasion through Barbados. We were happy when the NDP supported our motion at that time. We are also pleased that the NDP is proposing that we conduct investigations and tackle this issue, but we wonder whether we should not go even further.

We think that the Canada Revenue Agency should send all information directly to Revenu Québec the moment it opens a file. Given that the Canada Revenue Agency is not doing its job, Revenu Québec could do it for them. What does the member think of that idea?

[Foreign Investment, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to table the response to the request for access to information regarding the sale of Rona to Lowe's, which indicates that no document was submitted to the minister.

[Foreign Investment, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Rona is a big company and accounts for thousands of jobs.

In the end, we do not know if there was a review or how serious it was. However, what we do know is that in response to our request under the Access to Information Act, officials said, “we regret to inform you that we did not find any documents that correspond to your request”.

That was the response. There were no documents. Either someone is hiding something, or there is literally nothing to hide.

The truth is that Rona is not worth a dime to them.

How does the minister go about making decisions? Does he flip a coin?

[Foreign Investment, February 23rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when Rona was sold, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development claimed that he made his decision based on a net benefit analysis. Following an access to information request, we learned that the minister did not rely on any documentation before making his decision. No analysis, no studies, nothing.

Why is the minister claiming to have documents that he does not have? Is it because, ultimately, he could not care less about the sale of leading Quebec companies?

[February 15, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on February 15, 1965, Canada got a new flag. Of all 365 days of the year, Canada had to choose that day, the same day as the anniversary of the hanging of five Patriotes. With this abhorrent attempt to steal the day from Quebeckers, Canada has desecrated the memory of our heroes. Chevalier De Lorimier, Charles Hindelang, Amable Daunais, François Nicolas, and Pierre-Rémi Narbonne were hanged because they loved their nation, because they fought for it, and because they believed in freedom and were enemies of oppression.

On this 150th anniversary of Confederation, I would remind the House that Canada was built on the gallows that killed our heroes. Canada may have gotten a new flag on February 15, but we the indépendantistes, the separatists, we got our rallying cry: Vive la liberté, vive l'indépendance. Long live freedom, long live independence.

[Aerospace Industry, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when ageing sectors such as the auto and oil sectors need help, Ottawa has its chequebook at the ready, but when it is time to help the economic development of Quebec's cutting-edge industries, Ottawa becomes a cheapskate. The government would rather see our plants suffer than to give us our fair share.

How can the government justify offering Bombardier help that is 38 times less than what it offered the auto industry? Was the government afraid of how English Canada might react?