Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General had some harsh words for the Canada Revenue Agency last week. He accused the agency of a cover-up and misrepresentation.However, the Liberals refused to delve into this issue at the Standing Committee on Finance. That is right, in addition to hiding the data and the real statistics of the call centre, the Liberals are avoiding being accountable in the House. That is deplorable and insulting for Canadians, as they expect the Liberals to take these matters seriously and get to the bottom of things.Why is the minister refusing to accept responsibility for this abysmal failure? What else is she hiding? Her incompetence?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report is damning for the current Minister of National Revenue, not the minister who was in office two years ago. This report once again proves that the Minister of National Revenue is incapable of managing the important issues that fall under her agency's responsibility.Her mandate letter states that she must make the CRA a client-focused agency, but she is far from achieving that goal. On the new government propaganda website, the minister has put that objective under “ongoing commitments”. What does that mean? Does it mean the government does not care about this objective? The minister should have created a new category entitled “we have given up on this commitment because we failed miserably”.After two years, how would the minister grade herself on fulfilling her mandate? Would she give herself an E or an F?

Mr. Speaker, we learned today that the Minister of National Revenue signed an agreement with KPMG clients to exonerate them of all charges in connection with its tax scheme. This is absolutely appalling and contradicts everything the minister has been saying for years.This is yet more proof that there are two sets of rules, one for the privileged and another for everyone else. The minister just lost what little credibility she had left when she blamed public servants for this terrible agreement.All she had to do was reel in the big fish, so why did the Minister of National Revenue cut the line and let it get away without facing any consequences?

Mr. Speaker, he does not understand that the lack of transparency is coming from his own government. The Minister of National Revenue is in charge of the CRA. It is ridiculous.We learned that wealthy Canadians were still signing secret agreements with the CRA. The parliamentary secretary should shed light on that.Over the past four years, the Liberals had the opportunity to repair our two-tiered tax system, but now we see that the government simply does not have the political courage to act.How is it that wealthy taxpayers are still able to get away with not being charged after all the talk from the Minister of National Revenue?No one gets scared any more when the minister says that the net is tightening. The net is wide open and the hon. member is doing nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government deliberately chose to tax medical marijuana in its Bill C-74.Canadians who have a prescription to purchase medical cannabis are already required to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month to buy enough for their own needs. The liberals had a chance to address that yesterday in committee, but they outright rejected the NDP's amendments.How does the Prime Minister explain to the 270,000 patients in Canada who use medical cannabis that his bill will make their cannabis even more expensive?

Mr. Speaker, for the past three years, the Liberals have been talking about how hard they are working to fight tax evasion and tax havens, but nothing has changed and everyone knows it is just a smokescreen.The Minister of National Revenue herself even accepted a donation from an influential Liberal whose name turned up in the paradise papers. Now we understand why she has not done anything. As they say, one does not bite the hand that feeds.What message is the minister responsible for the CRA sending to the public and all taxpayers when she accepts money from individuals named in the paradise papers?

Mr. Speaker, Facebook and Google generated total advertising revenues of more than $5 billion last year, yet neither of those two multinationals paid a red cent in taxes to Canada.The Minister of National Revenue says she wants to focus on the big fish. Hello! They are not called web giants for nothing. While her government sits on its hands, our artists, retailers, media and broadcasters are the ones paying the price for the government's willful blindness and rather subjective enforcement of the law. When will she end the privileges given to the web giants?

Mr. Speaker, everyone remembers the fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Swiss Bank UBS to help wealthy individuals, including Canadians, avoid paying their taxes.Believe it or not, 10 years later, the Minister of National Revenue is still refusing to meet with one of the main whistleblowers in this case. It is completely ridiculous. A former bank employee wants to share information about instances of tax evasion and the minister is simply refusing to listen to what he has to say. Let us be serious here.Can the minister explain why she is still refusing to listen to what this whistleblower has to say, even though he made it possible for the U.S. to recover hundreds of millions of dollars?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government Representative in the Senate requested $800,000 in supplementary funding for his office. We are talking about a total budget of over $1 million. He wants to hire nine staff members to manage the independent senators. He even wants to appoint a whip. It seems to me there is something wrong with that.The Prime Minister keeps saying that there are no longer Liberal senators in the Senate, just senators who are Liberal. Would the government stop trying to hoodwink Canadians with its so-called Senate reform?

Mr. Speaker, the KPMG affair is again haunting the Minister of National Revenue as a result of the airing of the most recent episode of Enquête. The KPMG scheme was used in the early 2000s and no criminal charges have yet been laid against the thieves.The minister has been on the job for 18 months and we have yet to see any action. The problem is that the minister does not walk the talk. Words are no longer enough.Will the minister undertake to launch a full inquiry into the secret agreements signed with these white collar criminals? In particular, will she promise today to file criminal charges against these thieves, not just against the KPMG accountants but also against the fraudsters themselves?

Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, Canada will soon be ratifying another agreement that will make legal today what was still illegal yesterday. Just a few months ago, the Liberals supported our motion to combat tax havens. Today, they are considering ratifying yet another agreement with a tax haven. That is ridiculous.When the minister promised to review our tax agreements, what was her plan? Signing even more of them with tax havens? Is that it?

Mr. Speaker, we learned more news about the KPMG affair. Now it appears that the Canada Revenue Agency is involved in a cover-up. Indeed, we have learned that some correspondence between KPMG and the CRA has completely disappeared. Poof, like magic, all the KPMG files are gone. Come on. This is disgusting and utterly indefensible.Instead of rehashing the same old talking points, will the minister tell us what happened to that correspondence? If she cannot find the right cue card, then will the Minister of Justice tell us what happened to the incriminating correspondence?

Mr. Speaker, I would focus on another irresponsible remark. Yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources suggested that the government would have police and armed forces crack down on people protesting against the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Instead of having a constructive nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous communities, the minister threatened to deploy state forces. That is shameful.How can the government defend the minister and his irresponsible and even dangerous comments?

Mr. Speaker, that does not answer the basic question because the Liberals promised that the 2015 election would be the last under the existing system.We know that some of the Prime Minister's promises were just a lot of hot air, but not this one. It was clear and precise. The committee spent $1 million to hear what Canadians and experts across the country had to say. Unfortunately, yesterday, the government directly attacked the committee.Why is the government disparaging and insulting the committee and the hard work being done by its members, including Liberal MPs?

Mr. Speaker, the minister should put her cue cards down for a minute and use some common sense.She is still defending the indefensible. This is not just about accountants participating in professional association events. This is about senior officials taking part in secret meetings at the Rideau Club.What does she not understand about the appearance of conflict of interest? When will she put an end to these practices? When will she tell her officials that the Rideau Club is over and there will be no more secret meetings, period?

Mr. Speaker, things are not going well at the Canada Revenue Agency. It is a sinking ship.First came the private receptions and amnesty for fraudsters. Now, we have learned that many CRA employees are jumping ship to go and work at KPMG. There is a revolving door between the Canada Revenue Agency and the country's accounting firms. A new ship's captain was appointed a year and a half ago, but still nothing has changed. When will the minister put an end to the appalling cronyism in her own department?

Mr. Speaker, will we really be surprised if tomorrow they put the interests of big oil ahead of the interests of Canadians? I do not think so. Canada has never seen such a huge inequality. The Liberals brag about having lowered taxes for the middle class, but the wealthiest middle-class Canadians are the ones who benefit.Yesterday our leader presented an ambitious plan to finally reduce inequality that would make the richest 1% pay a 1% wealth tax on wealth over $20 million. We would reinvest these billions of dollars in the services that people truly need. When will the Liberals make ultra-rich Canadians pay their fair share?

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. The fact is that the banks and the Minister of Finance influenced the agency that is supposed to be monitoring them.Is anyone really surprised? This independent agency is actually funded by the banks themselves. Do we really think the banks' watchdog will bite the hand that feeds it? Canadians are sick of seeing the Liberal government side with the banks over the public. The government is letting banks rip off consumers, and the Prime Minister is turning a blind eye to the whole business.When will the Prime Minister grow a spine and stand up to the big banks by creating a genuinely independent watchdog with teeth?

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, it was revealed that the Canada Revenue Agency had offered amnesty to the wealthy clients of KPMG. The Minister of National Revenue said that the net was tightening, that justice would be done, and that no one was above the law. Unfortunately, nothing has been done since then. No criminal charges have been laid against KPMG or its clients. However, when it comes to attacking single mothers who depend on the Canada child benefit, the CRA moves like lightning. It wastes no time going after the little guys.Why, then, is the CRA taking so long to go after the real tax cheats, meaning KPMG and its clients?

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, regarding the KPMG affair, the Minister of National Revenue promised to, and I quote, “exhaust all judicial avenues”. She failed.There is no longer a single tax evader who is afraid of this incompetent minister. On the contrary, she is sending a clear message that she will cut a nice little secret deal with any wealthy individuals caught cheating. The minister wants more transparency, so let us start today with a few questions.When did the minister become of aware of this new amnesty? Did she think it was appropriate?If not, what did she do to stop it?

Mr. Speaker, while most Canadians are law-abiding citizens, we learned today of another service that KPMG provides to its wealthy clients. This time, it is recommending its tax avoidance scheme not only to avoid taxes, but also to allow its clients to avoid paying divorce settlements and alimony. It is shameful. How can the Liberals continue to protect KPMG? When is the minister going to do whatever it takes to bring to justice not only KPMG's millionaire clients, but also the firm itself and its unscrupulous accountants, for developing this tax avoidance scheme on the Isle of Man?

Mr. Speaker, wealthy Canadians are buying yachts and sailboats without paying any tax. These privileged few are using a scheme to pass through customs with impunity and without ever paying their fair share. The deputy minister of public safety, who is responsible for border services, is among them and apparently ensured that this scheme could continue. Liberals, ships, and tax havens. Does that ring a bell?Will the government put an end to this scheme? Most importantly, will it investigate the deputy minister of public safety?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General issued a scathing criticism of the Liberal government yesterday morning on the issue of web giants. The government keeps saying that it is waiting for the international community to join forces to come up with a solution to address the growth of the digital economy. These are just more excuses, and the problem has yet to be solved.What is interesting is that of the 60 countries polled by the OECD, Canada is one of just two countries that have yet to do anything. Worst of all, it has no intention of doing anything.What excuse will the Prime Minister use next to justify his failure to act?

Madam Speaker, francophone communities, including Quebec, are not very happy that the Liberals signed a secret deal with Netflix without any guarantee that the company would invest in French-language content.That is completely unfair to our Canadian broadcasters, who have to play by the rules. Even worse, this deal will further jeopardize the culture of Quebec and other francophone communities.It is simple. The Liberals are going to let an American company decide the future of our culture. Do the Quebec members across the way think it is a good idea to sub-contract the protection of our culture to the Americans?

Mr. Speaker, issues with the Phoenix pay system continue to plague thousands of employees, and their families as well.In Sherbrooke, a brother and sister, both students, have been suffering the consequences of Phoenix every day since the death of their father, a former federal public servant. For the past year and a half, Mr. Fortin's children and their notary have been struggling with Phoenix issues that prevent them from settling the estate and dealing with their loss. It is completely unacceptable and inhuman for this kind of thing to happen to families because of the federal government's incompetence.How much longer will Mr. Fortin's children have to wait before they can settle their father's estate and finally find closure? I appeal to the minister's compassion.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know quite well what a fair and equitable tax system is. It is a system in which the CEOs and millionaires of this world, like the minister, pay their fair share of taxes. Today, however, the rich are still exploiting tax loopholes that save them millions, even billions, of dollars, and the Liberals are still shielding them. There is nothing fair about this situation. The Liberals have yet to table any legislation for cracking down on international tax evasion.Why has the minister decided to turn a blind eye to the tax havens costing us upwards of $8 billion a year?

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding why the Liberals have been asking us all day why we do not just send this to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as quickly as possible. Now, it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who is asking us that question. Earlier, it was the member for Winnipeg North. We are in this situation because the Liberals refused to do just that when this issue was raised in the House the first time. The question of privilege was simply swept under the rug. The Liberals killed it. They did not want to hear about it. At that time, some Liberal members even gave speeches about why the matter did not need to be sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That is why they killed the debate. I am therefore wondering why they are asking us this question today. We are in this situation because they refused to send this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when it was first raised.I do not understand the Liberals' definition of filibustering. Members are in the House to debate issues. Why should members who want to speak be prevented from doing so? That is not what I would call filibustering. Members rise on behalf of their constituents and speak in the House. Whether there are 39 or 49 members, they are rising because they want to speak and share their opinions on this issue.Does the member agree with the definition of filibustering used by the Liberals, who believe that if many members want to speak about an issue, this automatically constitutes filibustering and we are trying to delay the whole process?

Mr. Speaker, the government does not understand anything about international tax avoidance because it continues to ignore the fundamental problem of tax havens instead of addressing it. The minister still believes that the solution to tax havens is to invest in the Canada Revenue Agency. However, the fundamental problem lies in our overly permissive legislation that the Liberal Party's cronies benefit from.Could the minister get her head out of the sand, especially since she voted for an NDP motion calling for action against tax avoidance and tax havens? Why has the minister still not proposed any measures to put an end to this legal tax scam?

Mr. Speaker, the members on the other side of the House clearly have no principles. The Minister of National Revenue has been on the job for three years. In that time, there has not been a single charge or conviction related to offshore tax evasion, as the Canada Revenue Agency itself admits.People who pay their taxes every year are starting to think that the Liberals are going too easy on the privileged 1%. Who can blame them? What with the Panama papers, the Paradise papers and the Bahamas leaks, we have seen three scandals in three years but zero results.What will it take for the Minister of National Revenue to do her job like everybody else, go after the real tax cheats, and get some real results out of that plan she claims is working?

Mr. Speaker, 90% of experts at the Canada Revenue Agency confirm that it is easier for the rich to avoid their tax responsibilities than it is for the average Canadian. This comes from the CRA.This is a total failure for the Minister of National Revenue's so-called fight against tax evasion. From her ivory tower, she seems to be the only one who thinks that all is well and that her strategy is working.Will the minister contradict 90% of her employees today, or will she finally admit that the Liberals have always planned on favouring the wealthy and their Liberal cronies?

Mr. Speaker, the number of ties between the Liberal Party of Canada, companies that produce cannabis, and investments from tax havens is simply mind-boggling.On top of that, the secretive operations of shell companies in tax havens really raise concerns about who is ultimately making money from those companies.The government simply failed to establish strict rules governing the financing of that industry, and the proposed regulatory framework is a smokescreen.What are the Prime Minister's real intentions in legalizing cannabis? Is it simply so that friends of the Liberal Party of Canada can make more money?

Mr. Speaker, although the minister announced that there would be consultations on changes to the rules governing the political activities of charitable organizations, we have learned that the agency is continuing the witch hunt launched by the Conservatives against these organizations, and that 12 organizations are still under investigation. What a contradiction.How can the minister justify the fact that the agency is still investigating these organizations when she has admitted that the rules are not clear and that they must be clarified? In view of a consultation on changing the rules, will the minister put a stop to all unfair investigations of charitable organizations, yes or no?

Madam Speaker, the government is calling this a historic agreement. It is certainly a historic agreement for Netflix.As the saying goes, when the cat is away, the mice will play. Clearly, many people across the aisle are asleep at the switch. American multinationals must have lulled them into a deep sleep. After the Liberals promised to actively fight tax evasion, the Minister of Canadian Heritage signed a tax evasion contract with Netflix.Who will be the next lucky winner—Google? Facebook? With all of CRA's purported efforts to combat tax evasion, is the Minister of National Revenue pleased to see her colleague from Canadian Heritage signing secret deals with multinationals so they can avoid paying their fair share?

Mr. Speaker, for three years now, the Prime Minister has been telling us, with his hand on his heart, that he is working on implementing a fairer and more equitable tax system. However, according to the Auditor General's report, the Canada Revenue Agency is more lenient with wealthy multinational corporations and those who conduct suspicious transactions abroad than it is with ordinary citizens. Surprise, surprise. The Liberals are maintaining a two-tiered tax system, one for the Liberals' wealthy friends and another for everyone else.Will the Prime Minister finally recognize that he did not keep his promise and that the Auditor General's report shows that his government's attempts to achieve tax fairness have been a complete failure?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks and talks but does not actually do anything.My constituents are tired of seeing the wealthy exploit our system while they struggle to make ends meet and to pay for medication.I met a 70-year-old man in Sherbrooke who told me that he faced a tough decision on his last visit to the pharmacy. He had three prescriptions, but he could only afford to get one filled. It is disgraceful that this kind of thing is happening in a country where access to a doctor is free. Access to the drugs prescribed by the doctor is not free.Why is the Prime Minister telling my constituent to wait for yet another report, when he could have taken action at any time in the three years he has been in office?

Mr. Speaker, while we celebrate World Press Freedom Day, Raif Badawi is still being detained by Saudi authorities for criticizing their regime.One would like to think that our government is doing everything in its power to have him released. In an interview, however, the Prime Minister said that it is important to be discreet and not to push too hard or too fast. He does not want to become personally involved.When it comes to doing business with the Saudis, the Liberals are quick off the mark, but when it comes to ensuring that human rights are respected, there is no hurry.How does the government explain this to Mr. Badawi's wife, who is here in Ottawa today?

Mr. Speaker, in 2017 the Auditor General called out the Canada Revenue Agency for its poor management of its call centres. Today we learned that the CRA is not the only organization hanging up on people, but apparently all government service offices are doing so. Come on.Why is it that when SNC-Lavalin, Loblaws or Mr. Bronfman calls the Prime Minister, he picks up immediately and will move heaven and earth for them, but when average Canadians need assistance from their government, half of their calls are dropped?This government does not serve the people. This government serves the friends of the Liberal Party of Canada.It is really not all that complicated. When will the government answer the phone?

Mr. Speaker, the CRA made secret deals with millionaires so that they would not have to pay penalties and would not be taken to court. That is what the CRA did.The generalities and rhetoric we are getting from the minister do not change anything. Something needs to be done and it is her job to make that happen. That is what she should be doing today.People are outraged about the KPMG affair. The law should be the same for everyone. It is unacceptable that rich people, such as the KPMG millionaires, are being let off the hook so easily. The government says that it cares about the middle class. Well, now is the time to show it.Can the minister tell us what she intends to do to ensure that the companies and individuals involved get what they deserve—

Mr. Speaker, get this: a Canadian mining exploration company is operating in Mongolia, and it is reporting $2.1 billion in profit in a Luxembourg-based corporation with one part-time employee, all of this with the Canada Revenue Agency’s blessing. It would seem, then, that the cat is out of the bag. The minister is facilitating these dubious tax schemes. In the fight against tax evasion, why is the minister part of the problem rather than the solution?

Mr. Speaker, if they really respected the OECD, they would not have wrapped up the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' investigation.The Liberals would like everyone to stop talking about the political interference scandal, but people still want the whole truth about the SNC-Lavalin affair. The government seems to have a double standard: one for its friends and another for everyone else. Look at how cozy Loblaws lobbyists and the Liberal Party are. That tells us who the Liberals are really working for, and that is just the latest example. This has gone on long enough. The public is entitled to greater transparency. Will the government finally launch a real public investigation into the allegations of interference before the next election?

Mr. Speaker, while the United States has managed to convict rich taxpayers involved in the UBS Swiss bank scandal and recover millions of dollars, Canada has not brought a single Canadian taxpayer to justice.The best the Canada Revenue Agency was able to manage was the creation of the voluntary disclosure program, under which fraudsters are guaranteed confidentiality, do not have to pay any financial penalties, and are protected from prosecution. It is shameful.When will the minister take concrete legislative measures to combat the use of tax havens? More importantly, when will she please stop giving fraudsters preferential treatment?

Madam Speaker, with the G7 summit just around the corner, Canada continues to lag behind the rest of the group, and the government still has no plan to force multinationals like Netflix to charge GST—

Madam Speaker, you will never guess what the member for Compton—Stanstead and Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is trying to get her constituents to believe.In her last mailer to all the residents of her riding, the minister claimed that spending $4.5 billion on a pipeline was an inevitable step in the energy transition. What a mind-boggling statement. That is like saying that taking the chain off a bike would make it go faster. The minister must not rate her constituents' intelligence very highly.Could the minister rise today to explain her reasoning and tell us why spending $4.5 billion on a pipeline for an energy transition was inevitable?

Mr. Speaker, it is a former Liberal minister who is saying that there is no business case for this project.People are right to be discouraged with this Liberal government. Even a former Liberal minister is finding it hard to believe that the Liberals are going to approve the Trans Mountain project tomorrow. His concerns are not about the environment or indigenous peoples. He is concerned about the economic viability of the project. He thinks it makes no sense to move forward with this project.If the Liberals do not want to listen to the people living on our coasts or the many young people protesting in the streets, will they listen to a former Liberal minister and cancel this project once and for all?

Madam Speaker, even a Liberal-dominated parliamentary committee has called for this. One of the only people in the entire world who is hesitant is the Prime Minister of Canada. That is unbelievable, more so because the issue is not that complicated. It is simply a matter of making the rules the same for everyone. Quebec realized this a long time ago, and Netflix announced that it will be charging QST.Will the government finally wake up and force web giants to pay GST?

Mr. Speaker, regarding the unfair treatment that benefits Netflix over its competitors, the Minister of Finance, and now the Prime Minister as well, are slamming the door on Quebeckers yet again. The Minister of Canadian Heritage was first in line, although clearly, her voice does not carry much weight around the cabinet table, nor do the voices of Liberal members from Quebec. They refuse to listen to the consensus in Quebec. The Minister of Canadian Heritage says one thing and then the Minister of Finance says the opposite. They need to get their stories straight.When will the government stop ignoring the consensus in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, people's anxiety about the economy and the environment is growing. The causes are obvious: the signing of free-trade agreements that hurt workers, a tax regime that is more lenient than ever before towards big business, and the climate emergency.Canadians expect the federal government to show leadership, but, instead, they are getting an old, $15-billion pipeline. There is clearly no plan. The government is always improvising. Fortunately, the NDP has a climate transition plan that would create 300,000 quality jobs in the green economy.When will the government follow our example and take appropriate action?

Mr. Speaker, 90% of Canadians think that labelling genetically modified foods should be mandatory. Today I introduced Bill C-291 to do exactly that. It is far from excessive. Sixty-five other jurisdictions, including Vermont, have already made labelling genetically modified foods mandatory. My question is simple. Will the government support my bill and allow Canadians as well to make an informed choice about what they eat?

Madam Speaker, at the Canada Revenue Agency, there are fine statements of intent and then there is reality. With the Minister of National Revenue, there is talk and there is action. The minister claims that the fight against tax avoidance is a priority, but a CBC investigation has shown that the number of wealthy taxpayers who have managed not to pay any taxes has doubled since 2011.The minister says that the net is tightening around tax cheats. Give me a break. It is wide open, and the system benefits the wealthy, who can afford to hire tax avoidance experts.Does the minister intend to finally put an end to this two-tier system where the wealthy can afford to avoid paying taxes? When will we begin to see some movement on this?

Madam Speaker, people wishing to show leadership on the environmental front do not buy oil pipelines.As if that were not bad enough, a recent IMF analysis pegged our fossil fuel subsidies at $54 billion. That is 2.4% of Canada's GDP. The government calls itself a climate change leader, but honestly, that makes no sense at all.Will the government undertake a transition toward renewable energy once and for all and turn its back on its friends in the dirty energy industry?

Madam Speaker, with the G7 summit just around the corner, Canada continues to lag behind the rest of the group, and the government still has no plan to force multinationals like Netflix to charge GST—

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative strategy of muzzling organizations that criticize its environmental policy lives on with the Liberals.Charitable organizations left a meeting with the Minister of Finance this week feeling dissatisfied and disappointed, and convinced that this issue is not a priority and that the government has no intention of modernizing the rules. However, the Liberals had promised to do so during the last election, as we can see on page 34 of the Liberal platform.Can the government explain this baffling flip-flop?

Mr. Speaker, the minister should put her cue cards down for a minute and use some common sense.She is still defending the indefensible. This is not just about accountants participating in professional association events. This is about senior officials taking part in secret meetings at the Rideau Club.What does she not understand about the appearance of conflict of interest? When will she put an end to these practices? When will she tell her officials that the Rideau Club is over and there will be no more secret meetings, period?

Mr. Speaker, I would focus on another irresponsible remark. Yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources suggested that the government would have police and armed forces crack down on people protesting against the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Instead of having a constructive nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous communities, the minister threatened to deploy state forces. That is shameful.How can the government defend the minister and his irresponsible and even dangerous comments?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General had some harsh words for the Canada Revenue Agency last week. He accused the agency of a cover-up and misrepresentation.However, the Liberals refused to delve into this issue at the Standing Committee on Finance. That is right, in addition to hiding the data and the real statistics of the call centre, the Liberals are avoiding being accountable in the House. That is deplorable and insulting for Canadians, as they expect the Liberals to take these matters seriously and get to the bottom of things.Why is the minister refusing to accept responsibility for this abysmal failure? What else is she hiding? Her incompetence?

Mr. Speaker, in 2017 the Auditor General called out the Canada Revenue Agency for its poor management of its call centres. Today we learned that the CRA is not the only organization hanging up on people, but apparently all government service offices are doing so. Come on.Why is it that when SNC-Lavalin, Loblaws or Mr. Bronfman calls the Prime Minister, he picks up immediately and will move heaven and earth for them, but when average Canadians need assistance from their government, half of their calls are dropped?This government does not serve the people. This government serves the friends of the Liberal Party of Canada.It is really not all that complicated. When will the government answer the phone?

Mr. Speaker, today at the Standing Committee on Finance, the Liberals rejected the NDP motion to call the Minister of National Revenue to testify about the KPMG affair. We know that the Liberals promised Canadians a responsible, accountable, transparent government, but they looked like a bunch of Conservatives in committee today. Canadians are angry about the KPMG affair and the Panama papers, and the Minister of National Revenue owes them an explanation. Why is the minister refusing to step up and explain to Canadians and the committee the difference between her statements in the House and the KPMG affair and the facts that have been revealed?

Mr. Speaker, we learned today that the Minister of National Revenue signed an agreement with KPMG clients to exonerate them of all charges in connection with its tax scheme. This is absolutely appalling and contradicts everything the minister has been saying for years.This is yet more proof that there are two sets of rules, one for the privileged and another for everyone else. The minister just lost what little credibility she had left when she blamed public servants for this terrible agreement.All she had to do was reel in the big fish, so why did the Minister of National Revenue cut the line and let it get away without facing any consequences?

Mr. Speaker, I was appalled by what the minister and member for Compton—Stanstead said about the Sherbrooke airport project, which has once again been delayed. I hope this is not yet another example of old Liberal policies, where this file is a priority during the election campaign but as soon as they are elected, it falls to the bottom of the priority list. Successive governments have come and gone, and Sherbrooke is still waiting for this issue to be resolved so it can have the security screening services its airport needs.More than a year following her election, will the minister make it a priority to stand up for this airport project at the cabinet table and finally resolve this issue once and for all, and as quickly as possible?

Mr. Speaker, as a result of inaction on the part of successive Liberal and Conservative governments, we are losing out on $26 billion in taxes every year, and the minister refuses to go after it.To put that number into context, it is enough to build eight superhospitals like Montreal's CHUM hospital, six Champlain Bridges or 650,000 affordable housing units.When will the government and the Minister of National Revenue find an ounce of courage to finally reform our outdated tax laws, which favour the wealthiest Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not listening at all. It is simple. The government kept members of the advisory committee in the dark about the negotiations and agreement with Netflix. The committee never discussed this agreement.I imagine that the government must have been afraid of hearing that it was the worst idea in the world for our cultural sovereignty and for tax fairness in Canada. The experts on this committee have been clear: the Internet giant must be subject to the same rules as Canadian companies and it should not get a free pass. It is simple.Why did the Prime Minister create an advisory committee and conduct consultations if he just keeps ignoring them?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say they want to combat tax evasion, but the agreements signed with Grenada and Antigua and Barbuda clearly do the opposite.To be clear, provisions in both agreements allow the active business income from a Canadian company's foreign affiliate to be paid to the Canadian parent company in the form of dividends that are exempt from Canadian taxes. It could not be any clearer. It is written in black and white in the agreements.How can the government and the minister defend such bad agreements?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.First I want to thank him for having pointed out that, in their motion, the Conservatives tried to exploit officials at the Department of Finance for political purposes, which is unfortunate. I would like him to clarify the following point once again for our Conservative colleagues. The Conservatives just picked a number that suited them. If no changes had been made in the estimates, in other words, in the Conservative government's spending, there would have been a deficit at the end of this fiscal year, Can he clarify this matter? I just want it to be clear for our Conservative colleagues. Can he confirm that that is what would have happened without any changes to the government's plans?

Mr. Speaker, that does not answer the basic question because the Liberals promised that the 2015 election would be the last under the existing system.We know that some of the Prime Minister's promises were just a lot of hot air, but not this one. It was clear and precise. The committee spent $1 million to hear what Canadians and experts across the country had to say. Unfortunately, yesterday, the government directly attacked the committee.Why is the government disparaging and insulting the committee and the hard work being done by its members, including Liberal MPs?

Madam Speaker, francophone communities, including Quebec, are not very happy that the Liberals signed a secret deal with Netflix without any guarantee that the company would invest in French-language content.That is completely unfair to our Canadian broadcasters, who have to play by the rules. Even worse, this deal will further jeopardize the culture of Quebec and other francophone communities.It is simple. The Liberals are going to let an American company decide the future of our culture. Do the Quebec members across the way think it is a good idea to sub-contract the protection of our culture to the Americans?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General issued a scathing criticism of the Liberal government yesterday morning on the issue of web giants. The government keeps saying that it is waiting for the international community to join forces to come up with a solution to address the growth of the digital economy. These are just more excuses, and the problem has yet to be solved.What is interesting is that of the 60 countries polled by the OECD, Canada is one of just two countries that have yet to do anything. Worst of all, it has no intention of doing anything.What excuse will the Prime Minister use next to justify his failure to act?

Mr. Speaker, for the past three years, the Liberals have been talking about how hard they are working to fight tax evasion and tax havens, but nothing has changed and everyone knows it is just a smokescreen.The Minister of National Revenue herself even accepted a donation from an influential Liberal whose name turned up in the paradise papers. Now we understand why she has not done anything. As they say, one does not bite the hand that feeds.What message is the minister responsible for the CRA sending to the public and all taxpayers when she accepts money from individuals named in the paradise papers?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report is damning for the current Minister of National Revenue, not the minister who was in office two years ago. This report once again proves that the Minister of National Revenue is incapable of managing the important issues that fall under her agency's responsibility.Her mandate letter states that she must make the CRA a client-focused agency, but she is far from achieving that goal. On the new government propaganda website, the minister has put that objective under “ongoing commitments”. What does that mean? Does it mean the government does not care about this objective? The minister should have created a new category entitled “we have given up on this commitment because we failed miserably”.After two years, how would the minister grade herself on fulfilling her mandate? Would she give herself an E or an F?

Mr. Speaker, despite the government's grand promises and its claims to want to tackle tax evasion, we learned that the company that is renting office space to the Canada Revenue Agency is guilty of tax evasion.It makes no sense for this so-called progressive government to say that it wants to combat tax evasion and then turn around and sign public contracts with companies linked to tax havens. Does the Minister of National Revenue believe it is acceptable that her own department is doing business with those companies and will she cancel that contract? If she does not cancel the contract, that will be a clear message that she is turning a blind eye to tax evasion.When will that outrageous contract be cancelled?

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. The fact is that the banks and the Minister of Finance influenced the agency that is supposed to be monitoring them.Is anyone really surprised? This independent agency is actually funded by the banks themselves. Do we really think the banks' watchdog will bite the hand that feeds it? Canadians are sick of seeing the Liberal government side with the banks over the public. The government is letting banks rip off consumers, and the Prime Minister is turning a blind eye to the whole business.When will the Prime Minister grow a spine and stand up to the big banks by creating a genuinely independent watchdog with teeth?

Mr. Speaker, the CRA made secret deals with millionaires so that they would not have to pay penalties and would not be taken to court. That is what the CRA did.The generalities and rhetoric we are getting from the minister do not change anything. Something needs to be done and it is her job to make that happen. That is what she should be doing today.People are outraged about the KPMG affair. The law should be the same for everyone. It is unacceptable that rich people, such as the KPMG millionaires, are being let off the hook so easily. The government says that it cares about the middle class. Well, now is the time to show it.Can the minister tell us what she intends to do to ensure that the companies and individuals involved get what they deserve—

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on being re-elected. Since he has been here for some time, I wonder if he agreed with the strategy the late Mr. Flaherty used under the previous government. He implemented an economic action plan to stimulate the economy by investing billions of dollars.I am curious to know if he agreed with the previous government's strategy and if he would agree with a similar strategy to stimulate our economy in 2016 and beyond, if need be.

Mr. Speaker, the buffet is open for Canada's big banks. Since taking office, the Minister of Finance has met with lobbyists working on behalf of Canada's big banks twice as much as his Conservative predecessor. I am sorry, but I doubt that those meetings were really about discussing the middle class and those working hard to join it.Who is actually running the Department of Finance? Is it Bay Street, the Liberals' friends who are part of the wealthiest 1%, or the minister, who happens to be from Bay Street and among that 1%?

Madam Speaker, even a Liberal-dominated parliamentary committee has called for this. One of the only people in the entire world who is hesitant is the Prime Minister of Canada. That is unbelievable, more so because the issue is not that complicated. It is simply a matter of making the rules the same for everyone. Quebec realized this a long time ago, and Netflix announced that it will be charging QST.Will the government finally wake up and force web giants to pay GST?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government Representative in the Senate requested $800,000 in supplementary funding for his office. We are talking about a total budget of over $1 million. He wants to hire nine staff members to manage the independent senators. He even wants to appoint a whip. It seems to me there is something wrong with that.The Prime Minister keeps saying that there are no longer Liberal senators in the Senate, just senators who are Liberal. Would the government stop trying to hoodwink Canadians with its so-called Senate reform?

Mr. Speaker, despite the House's unanimous support for a motion that I moved during the last session, the matter of non-designated airports in Canada has still not been resolved. Let us talk about it at the Sherbrooke airport.Given the promises his party and its members have made, can the Minister of Transport give us an update on the development of the much-touted mechanism that non-designated airports have long been waiting for and that would finally allow them to reach agreements with airlines?

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, it was revealed that the Canada Revenue Agency had offered amnesty to the wealthy clients of KPMG. The Minister of National Revenue said that the net was tightening, that justice would be done, and that no one was above the law. Unfortunately, nothing has been done since then. No criminal charges have been laid against KPMG or its clients. However, when it comes to attacking single mothers who depend on the Canada child benefit, the CRA moves like lightning. It wastes no time going after the little guys.Why, then, is the CRA taking so long to go after the real tax cheats, meaning KPMG and its clients?

Mr. Speaker, 90% of Canadians think that labelling genetically modified foods should be mandatory. Today I introduced Bill C-291 to do exactly that. It is far from excessive. Sixty-five other jurisdictions, including Vermont, have already made labelling genetically modified foods mandatory. My question is simple. Will the government support my bill and allow Canadians as well to make an informed choice about what they eat?

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with my colleague's speech.Does he know what drove the Liberals' 180 on this issue? They first time the question of privilege came up, they totally shut down debate instead of taking the stance that a committee should look at the issue, which is what they are saying now. After a few hours, they decided that was enough, they did not want to hear another word about it, and they would not send it to committee. Now they are telling us this issue has to go to committee as quickly as possible and the debate has to end.Can the member tell me why the Liberals reversed their stance on referring this issue to committee? The first time we talked about this, they said it was out of the question and shut down debate. Now they are saying we need to expedite things and send the question to committee immediately.

Mr. Speaker, the close ties between BlackRock, the government, the infrastructure bank, and its profits were not enough. Now KPMG wants to join the closed circles of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister himself. We also have the revolving door between the Canada Revenue Agency and KPMG and the many public contracts awarded to KPMG. The Minister of National Revenue says that the trap is set for tax cheats.How does she explain the growing ties between the Liberal government and the KPMG accounting firm? When she says that the trap is set, does she mean that the door is wide open for the Liberal Party of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, while the United States has managed to convict rich taxpayers involved in the UBS Swiss bank scandal and recover millions of dollars, Canada has not brought a single Canadian taxpayer to justice.The best the Canada Revenue Agency was able to manage was the creation of the voluntary disclosure program, under which fraudsters are guaranteed confidentiality, do not have to pay any financial penalties, and are protected from prosecution. It is shameful.When will the minister take concrete legislative measures to combat the use of tax havens? More importantly, when will she please stop giving fraudsters preferential treatment?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Since he is a very intelligent man, I am sure that he will not give in to intellectual dishonesty and he will confirm to the House that with the same level of spending, if there had been no change in government and no major changes to fiscal planning, there would have been a deficit at the end of the current fiscal year. Can my colleague confirm that?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know quite well what a fair and equitable tax system is. It is a system in which the CEOs and millionaires of this world, like the minister, pay their fair share of taxes. Today, however, the rich are still exploiting tax loopholes that save them millions, even billions, of dollars, and the Liberals are still shielding them. There is nothing fair about this situation. The Liberals have yet to table any legislation for cracking down on international tax evasion.Why has the minister decided to turn a blind eye to the tax havens costing us upwards of $8 billion a year?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Prime Minister has finally raised his concerns with the King of Saudi Arabia regarding the imprisonment of Raif Badawi. I thank him for that.However, a lot of work remains to be done before Mr. Badawi can finally return to his family in Sherbrooke. Offering him honorary citizenship could provide the government with new diplomatic levers to secure his release. Since his imprisonment, Mr. Badawi has been awarded important prizes, recognitions, and distinctions and has received support from around the world. It is time for Canada to do its part. Will the government grant Mr. Badawi honorary citizenship?

Mr. Speaker, wealthy Canadians are buying yachts and sailboats without paying any tax. These privileged few are using a scheme to pass through customs with impunity and without ever paying their fair share. The deputy minister of public safety, who is responsible for border services, is among them and apparently ensured that this scheme could continue. Liberals, ships, and tax havens. Does that ring a bell?Will the government put an end to this scheme? Most importantly, will it investigate the deputy minister of public safety?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the Prime Minister, who said, ”I am hearing consumers say loud and clear that they want to know more about what they are putting in their bodies.... We are working with them.” That is exactly what he said on Radio-Canada when he was asked what he thought of the fact that 80% of the population supports mandatory GMO labelling, not to mention that the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party put forward a resolution about this during its 2016 convention. This evening, we will be voting on whether to honour the desire for transparency expressed repeatedly by the Prime Minister, his party, and the majority of Canadians. Will the Prime Minister walk the talk and support my bill this evening?

Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that the Minister of Finance is working hand in glove with Canada's big banks. This is another example of the special treatment the Liberals' pals enjoy.This Liberal government promised to provide more transparency, do politics differently and take real measures to fight climate change. What did those measures turn out to be? A gift of $12 million for one of the country's richest corporations. To Loblaws with love, from the Prime Minister of Canada.When will the Liberals stop favouring the upper class and put our priorities first?

Madam Speaker, at the Canada Revenue Agency, there are fine statements of intent and then there is reality. With the Minister of National Revenue, there is talk and there is action. The minister claims that the fight against tax avoidance is a priority, but a CBC investigation has shown that the number of wealthy taxpayers who have managed not to pay any taxes has doubled since 2011.The minister says that the net is tightening around tax cheats. Give me a break. It is wide open, and the system benefits the wealthy, who can afford to hire tax avoidance experts.Does the minister intend to finally put an end to this two-tier system where the wealthy can afford to avoid paying taxes? When will we begin to see some movement on this?

Mr. Speaker, from softwood lumber to supply management, Canadian industries are under attack by the United States.In January, the U.S. Department of Commerce decided to impose countervailing duties as high as nearly 10% on Canadian paper imports, and additional anti-dumping duties are expected next month. Quebec is one of the world's biggest pulp and paper producers, and a good many jobs depend on that sector, including jobs in my region, the Eastern Townships. Will the government stand up and defend the thousands of jobs that depend on this key industry?

Mr. Speaker, for three years now, the Prime Minister has been telling us, with his hand on his heart, that he is working on implementing a fairer and more equitable tax system. However, according to the Auditor General's report, the Canada Revenue Agency is more lenient with wealthy multinational corporations and those who conduct suspicious transactions abroad than it is with ordinary citizens. Surprise, surprise. The Liberals are maintaining a two-tiered tax system, one for the Liberals' wealthy friends and another for everyone else.Will the Prime Minister finally recognize that he did not keep his promise and that the Auditor General's report shows that his government's attempts to achieve tax fairness have been a complete failure?

Mr. Speaker, people's anxiety about the economy and the environment is growing. The causes are obvious: the signing of free-trade agreements that hurt workers, a tax regime that is more lenient than ever before towards big business, and the climate emergency.Canadians expect the federal government to show leadership, but, instead, they are getting an old, $15-billion pipeline. There is clearly no plan. The government is always improvising. Fortunately, the NDP has a climate transition plan that would create 300,000 quality jobs in the green economy.When will the government follow our example and take appropriate action?

Mr. Speaker, will we really be surprised if tomorrow they put the interests of big oil ahead of the interests of Canadians? I do not think so. Canada has never seen such a huge inequality. The Liberals brag about having lowered taxes for the middle class, but the wealthiest middle-class Canadians are the ones who benefit.Yesterday our leader presented an ambitious plan to finally reduce inequality that would make the richest 1% pay a 1% wealth tax on wealth over $20 million. We would reinvest these billions of dollars in the services that people truly need. When will the Liberals make ultra-rich Canadians pay their fair share?

Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Committee on Finance, the Minister of National Revenue said that all taxpayer files are confidential, that they would remain so, and that no parliamentarian would have access to Canada Revenue Agency files, or would otherwise face jail time, no less. However, the Prime Minister, a parliamentarian, cleared his friend, Mr. Bronfman. He said “we have received assurances that all rules were followed…and we are satisfied with those assurances”. Can the minister tell us whether the Prime Minister had access to confidential information from the Canada Revenue Agency? If so, when will he face the consequences?

Mr. Speaker, he does not understand that the lack of transparency is coming from his own government. The Minister of National Revenue is in charge of the CRA. It is ridiculous.We learned that wealthy Canadians were still signing secret agreements with the CRA. The parliamentary secretary should shed light on that.Over the past four years, the Liberals had the opportunity to repair our two-tiered tax system, but now we see that the government simply does not have the political courage to act.How is it that wealthy taxpayers are still able to get away with not being charged after all the talk from the Minister of National Revenue?No one gets scared any more when the minister says that the net is tightening. The net is wide open and the hon. member is doing nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker, while most Canadians are law-abiding citizens, we learned today of another service that KPMG provides to its wealthy clients. This time, it is recommending its tax avoidance scheme not only to avoid taxes, but also to allow its clients to avoid paying divorce settlements and alimony. It is shameful. How can the Liberals continue to protect KPMG? When is the minister going to do whatever it takes to bring to justice not only KPMG's millionaire clients, but also the firm itself and its unscrupulous accountants, for developing this tax avoidance scheme on the Isle of Man?

Mr. Speaker, I really cannot figure out what the Minister of National Revenue does not understand.While she drags her feet, the Liberal Party's cronies continue to take advantage of the system that she is keeping in place. The Liberal Party of Canada's bagman, for example, sheltered millions of dollars from taxes in the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands are a notorious tax haven with which Canada has signed a tax information exchange agreement. This agreement should have made the Canada Revenue Agency aware of the scheming Liberal cronies have been involved in.Why do we have agreements with tax havens such as the Cayman Islands if they let the Liberal clique dodge their tax obligations?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General issued a scathing report on the Canada Revenue Agency. Some taxpayers wait more than 896 days for an answer from the agency. The agency has accumulated more than 171,000 objections to notices of assessment, and the processing times are virtually four times longer than those of other countries. Governments come and go, but the problems remain. We need more than just platitudes, we need action.The minister wanted to improve services. Does she find it reasonable that Canadians have to wait more than two years to get an answer from her department?

Madam Speaker, you will never guess what the member for Compton—Stanstead and Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is trying to get her constituents to believe.In her last mailer to all the residents of her riding, the minister claimed that spending $4.5 billion on a pipeline was an inevitable step in the energy transition. What a mind-boggling statement. That is like saying that taking the chain off a bike would make it go faster. The minister must not rate her constituents' intelligence very highly.Could the minister rise today to explain her reasoning and tell us why spending $4.5 billion on a pipeline for an energy transition was inevitable?

Madam Speaker, the government is calling this a historic agreement. It is certainly a historic agreement for Netflix.As the saying goes, when the cat is away, the mice will play. Clearly, many people across the aisle are asleep at the switch. American multinationals must have lulled them into a deep sleep. After the Liberals promised to actively fight tax evasion, the Minister of Canadian Heritage signed a tax evasion contract with Netflix.Who will be the next lucky winner—Google? Facebook? With all of CRA's purported efforts to combat tax evasion, is the Minister of National Revenue pleased to see her colleague from Canadian Heritage signing secret deals with multinationals so they can avoid paying their fair share?

Mr. Speaker, although the minister announced that there would be consultations on changes to the rules governing the political activities of charitable organizations, we have learned that the agency is continuing the witch hunt launched by the Conservatives against these organizations, and that 12 organizations are still under investigation. What a contradiction.How can the minister justify the fact that the agency is still investigating these organizations when she has admitted that the rules are not clear and that they must be clarified? In view of a consultation on changing the rules, will the minister put a stop to all unfair investigations of charitable organizations, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks and talks but does not actually do anything.My constituents are tired of seeing the wealthy exploit our system while they struggle to make ends meet and to pay for medication.I met a 70-year-old man in Sherbrooke who told me that he faced a tough decision on his last visit to the pharmacy. He had three prescriptions, but he could only afford to get one filled. It is disgraceful that this kind of thing is happening in a country where access to a doctor is free. Access to the drugs prescribed by the doctor is not free.Why is the Prime Minister telling my constituent to wait for yet another report, when he could have taken action at any time in the three years he has been in office?

Mr. Speaker, things are not going well at the Canada Revenue Agency. It is a sinking ship.First came the private receptions and amnesty for fraudsters. Now, we have learned that many CRA employees are jumping ship to go and work at KPMG. There is a revolving door between the Canada Revenue Agency and the country's accounting firms. A new ship's captain was appointed a year and a half ago, but still nothing has changed. When will the minister put an end to the appalling cronyism in her own department?

Mr. Speaker, a massive economic burden is being placed on the shoulders of Canadians, and this burden continues to grow. Half of Canadians are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills, and they are taking on increasing levels of debt.In the meantime, the Minister of Finance claims that the economy is doing very well. Obviously, he and his friends are the only ones benefiting from this economic growth.How can the Minister of Finance assess our country's economy for Canadians when he does not even have a tool for calculating and assessing the consequences and risks of Canadians' household debt?

Mr. Speaker, Facebook and Google generated total advertising revenues of more than $5 billion last year, yet neither of those two multinationals paid a red cent in taxes to Canada.The Minister of National Revenue says she wants to focus on the big fish. Hello! They are not called web giants for nothing. While her government sits on its hands, our artists, retailers, media and broadcasters are the ones paying the price for the government's willful blindness and rather subjective enforcement of the law. When will she end the privileges given to the web giants?

Mr. Speaker, the number of ties between the Liberal Party of Canada, companies that produce cannabis, and investments from tax havens is simply mind-boggling.On top of that, the secretive operations of shell companies in tax havens really raise concerns about who is ultimately making money from those companies.The government simply failed to establish strict rules governing the financing of that industry, and the proposed regulatory framework is a smokescreen.What are the Prime Minister's real intentions in legalizing cannabis? Is it simply so that friends of the Liberal Party of Canada can make more money?

Mr. Speaker, while we celebrate World Press Freedom Day, Raif Badawi is still being detained by Saudi authorities for criticizing their regime.One would like to think that our government is doing everything in its power to have him released. In an interview, however, the Prime Minister said that it is important to be discreet and not to push too hard or too fast. He does not want to become personally involved.When it comes to doing business with the Saudis, the Liberals are quick off the mark, but when it comes to ensuring that human rights are respected, there is no hurry.How does the government explain this to Mr. Badawi's wife, who is here in Ottawa today?

Mr. Speaker, it is a former Liberal minister who is saying that there is no business case for this project.People are right to be discouraged with this Liberal government. Even a former Liberal minister is finding it hard to believe that the Liberals are going to approve the Trans Mountain project tomorrow. His concerns are not about the environment or indigenous peoples. He is concerned about the economic viability of the project. He thinks it makes no sense to move forward with this project.If the Liberals do not want to listen to the people living on our coasts or the many young people protesting in the streets, will they listen to a former Liberal minister and cancel this project once and for all?

Mr. Speaker, the Journal de Montréal reports that Susan McArthur, a former employee of UBS bank, was a member of the Canada Revenue Agency's board of management at the very moment that the financial scandal at UBS was erupting. By her own admission, her appointment was political patronage, pure and simple. Canada laid no charges against either UBS or its clients, unlike other countries such as the United States and France, which came down hard on them.In light of today's new information, will the minister agree to conduct a full review of the file to ensure that there was no undue interference?

Mr. Speaker, the members on the other side of the House clearly have no principles. The Minister of National Revenue has been on the job for three years. In that time, there has not been a single charge or conviction related to offshore tax evasion, as the Canada Revenue Agency itself admits.People who pay their taxes every year are starting to think that the Liberals are going too easy on the privileged 1%. Who can blame them? What with the Panama papers, the Paradise papers and the Bahamas leaks, we have seen three scandals in three years but zero results.What will it take for the Minister of National Revenue to do her job like everybody else, go after the real tax cheats, and get some real results out of that plan she claims is working?

Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, we heard a number of Conservatives talking about how they restored a balanced budget. However, they are forgetting to say how they managed to achieve that. The main reason is that they asked each and every department to cut its budget by between 5% and 10%. The member should know something about this, since he was a minister and he must have had to make cuts in his own department to come up with the money that Treasury Board was asking for.I wonder if the member would at least acknowledge that the reason why they might have, possibly, balanced the budget in 2015-16—although the numbers suggest otherwise—was that it would have been done at the expense of services to Canadians and public services in general.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government deliberately chose to tax medical marijuana in its Bill C-74.Canadians who have a prescription to purchase medical cannabis are already required to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month to buy enough for their own needs. The liberals had a chance to address that yesterday in committee, but they outright rejected the NDP's amendments.How does the Prime Minister explain to the 270,000 patients in Canada who use medical cannabis that his bill will make their cannabis even more expensive?

Mr. Speaker, if they really respected the OECD, they would not have wrapped up the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' investigation.The Liberals would like everyone to stop talking about the political interference scandal, but people still want the whole truth about the SNC-Lavalin affair. The government seems to have a double standard: one for its friends and another for everyone else. Look at how cozy Loblaws lobbyists and the Liberal Party are. That tells us who the Liberals are really working for, and that is just the latest example. This has gone on long enough. The public is entitled to greater transparency. Will the government finally launch a real public investigation into the allegations of interference before the next election?

Mr. Speaker, “[t]his is to inform you of updates to the current LST procedures and verses relating to adults with diabetes.” That was in an email sent to all employees of the CRA's disability program. Talk about a lack of respect on the part of the Minister of Revenue, who continues to tell everyone that nothing has changed.Will the minister first remedy the situation and, more importantly, apologize to the vulnerable diabetics who have been refused access to the program even though they had always been approved previously?

Mr. Speaker, the government does not understand anything about international tax avoidance because it continues to ignore the fundamental problem of tax havens instead of addressing it. The minister still believes that the solution to tax havens is to invest in the Canada Revenue Agency. However, the fundamental problem lies in our overly permissive legislation that the Liberal Party's cronies benefit from.Could the minister get her head out of the sand, especially since she voted for an NDP motion calling for action against tax avoidance and tax havens? Why has the minister still not proposed any measures to put an end to this legal tax scam?

Mr. Speaker, with the emergence of financial technology, effective privacy protections are essential, yet the government is muddling along blindly with its innovation agenda. The alarm was sounded last week by the Privacy Commissioner, who warned that the budget bill does not give adequate consideration to privacy. However, the Minister of Finance is yet again too busy with his banking buddies, who are profiting off our personal information.Why did the minister not consult either consumers or the Privacy Commissioner when drafting his bill?

Mr. Speaker, the KPMG affair is again haunting the Minister of National Revenue as a result of the airing of the most recent episode of Enquête. The KPMG scheme was used in the early 2000s and no criminal charges have yet been laid against the thieves.The minister has been on the job for 18 months and we have yet to see any action. The problem is that the minister does not walk the talk. Words are no longer enough.Will the minister undertake to launch a full inquiry into the secret agreements signed with these white collar criminals? In particular, will she promise today to file criminal charges against these thieves, not just against the KPMG accountants but also against the fraudsters themselves?

Mr. Speaker, we learned more news about the KPMG affair. Now it appears that the Canada Revenue Agency is involved in a cover-up. Indeed, we have learned that some correspondence between KPMG and the CRA has completely disappeared. Poof, like magic, all the KPMG files are gone. Come on. This is disgusting and utterly indefensible.Instead of rehashing the same old talking points, will the minister tell us what happened to that correspondence? If she cannot find the right cue card, then will the Minister of Justice tell us what happened to the incriminating correspondence?

Mr. Speaker, issues with the Phoenix pay system continue to plague thousands of employees, and their families as well.In Sherbrooke, a brother and sister, both students, have been suffering the consequences of Phoenix every day since the death of their father, a former federal public servant. For the past year and a half, Mr. Fortin's children and their notary have been struggling with Phoenix issues that prevent them from settling the estate and dealing with their loss. It is completely unacceptable and inhuman for this kind of thing to happen to families because of the federal government's incompetence.How much longer will Mr. Fortin's children have to wait before they can settle their father's estate and finally find closure? I appeal to the minister's compassion.

Mr. Speaker, 90% of experts at the Canada Revenue Agency confirm that it is easier for the rich to avoid their tax responsibilities than it is for the average Canadian. This comes from the CRA.This is a total failure for the Minister of National Revenue's so-called fight against tax evasion. From her ivory tower, she seems to be the only one who thinks that all is well and that her strategy is working.Will the minister contradict 90% of her employees today, or will she finally admit that the Liberals have always planned on favouring the wealthy and their Liberal cronies?

Madam Speaker, people wishing to show leadership on the environmental front do not buy oil pipelines.As if that were not bad enough, a recent IMF analysis pegged our fossil fuel subsidies at $54 billion. That is 2.4% of Canada's GDP. The government calls itself a climate change leader, but honestly, that makes no sense at all.Will the government undertake a transition toward renewable energy once and for all and turn its back on its friends in the dirty energy industry?

Mr. Speaker, on the heels of the Panama papers, there has been another leak of information involving Canadian banks and companies. Apparently, the minister's strategy is not working. We have a new government, but still no action to combat tax havens. Canada currently has a tax information exchange agreement with the Bahamas. However, it does not appear to be working.Following yesterday's revelations, does the Minister of National Revenue plan to review the agreement to ensure that there really is an effective exchange of information that will allow Canada to get tough on tax cheats once and for all?

Mr. Speaker, tax evasion and patronage scandals continue to seriously undermine the credibility of an important institution in our country. Our officials are leaving the Canada Revenue Agency to go to accounting firms that are not shy about evading taxes, firms such as KPMG, which developed a scheme with the Isle of Man. The scheme sought to help KPMG's clients avoid paying taxes in Canada. It is as simple as that.My question is simple: is the minister committed to tightening the post-employment rules to prevent situations like this, situations that erode public trust?

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding why the Liberals have been asking us all day why we do not just send this to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as quickly as possible. Now, it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who is asking us that question. Earlier, it was the member for Winnipeg North. We are in this situation because the Liberals refused to do just that when this issue was raised in the House the first time. The question of privilege was simply swept under the rug. The Liberals killed it. They did not want to hear about it. At that time, some Liberal members even gave speeches about why the matter did not need to be sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That is why they killed the debate. I am therefore wondering why they are asking us this question today. We are in this situation because they refused to send this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when it was first raised.I do not understand the Liberals' definition of filibustering. Members are in the House to debate issues. Why should members who want to speak be prevented from doing so? That is not what I would call filibustering. Members rise on behalf of their constituents and speak in the House. Whether there are 39 or 49 members, they are rising because they want to speak and share their opinions on this issue.Does the member agree with the definition of filibustering used by the Liberals, who believe that if many members want to speak about an issue, this automatically constitutes filibustering and we are trying to delay the whole process?

Mr. Speaker, the Mont-Mégantic observatory is vital to the development of scientific knowledge in Canada and throughout the world. Even so, the Liberals and their predecessors are content to wait until the last minute to approve funding for the observatory, and then only for a set period of time.This approach is once again causing the observatory team and the scientific community a lot of anxiety, and yet the Liberals promised stable funding for the observatory.Are we witnessing the breaking of yet another Liberal promise? Is the Prime Minister waiting for the observatory to close its doors before he takes action?

Mr. Speaker, two years after the Panama papers scandal, the Liberals have yet to do anything to tackle international tax evasion.If someone earns $35,000 a year and owes $200 to the government, the CRA is super efficient. However, if someone hides millions of dollars in tax havens, the agency is unable to do anything at all and drags its feet.The minister may say that her plan is working, but in the past three years she has had nothing to show Canadians. There have been no convictions, no charges and no recoveries related to international tax evasion.Why do the Liberals always let the rich off the hook so easily?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him to explain to the House why the Conservatives are suddenly so afraid of deficits. Today is not the first time we have heard this.The Conservatives are getting all worked up because the government is predicting a deficit, when they racked up $153 billion in debt during their mandate. Furthermore, a Conservative finance minister proposed this strategy to stimulate the economy. They decided to make significant investments as part of what they called Canada's economic action plan.Now, when this government is talking about doing the same thing, the Conservatives seem to be working themselves into a state because the government has an action plan similar to the one they proposed. Why are they suddenly against deficits now, when they themselves racked up $153 billion in debt during their mandate?

Mr. Speaker, after Netflix was allowed to bypass our tax laws, the Canada Revenue Agency issued a new interpretation that would tax employee discounts, affecting small retail businesses everywhere.You heard right. The Minister of National Revenue would rather keep chasing after middle-class employees than the CEOs of major corporations who hide their income in tax havens. It is absolutely shameful.How can she allow a giant like Netflix not to pay taxes, while employee discounts will be taxed?The minister said that she was not aware. Come on. Who is in charge of the Canada Revenue Agency? Is it the minister? When will she take responsibility on this issue?

Mr. Speaker, do you know who gave external legal advice for the KPMG scheme? It was Dentons law firm. Who organizes exclusive soirees at international tax conferences? Dentons law firm. Who attended one of these exclusive soirees last fall? Justice Bocock of the Tax Court of Canada. Who is the judge overseeing the case involving the Cooper family, which is appealing the CRA decision? You guessed it, it is Justice Bocock.Two plus two equals four, and Canadians can see through this.Does the Minister of Justice believe that the Canadian Judicial Council should conduct a thorough review of this judge's inappropriate behaviour?

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, regarding the KPMG affair, the Minister of National Revenue promised to, and I quote, “exhaust all judicial avenues”. She failed.There is no longer a single tax evader who is afraid of this incompetent minister. On the contrary, she is sending a clear message that she will cut a nice little secret deal with any wealthy individuals caught cheating. The minister wants more transparency, so let us start today with a few questions.When did the minister become of aware of this new amnesty? Did she think it was appropriate?If not, what did she do to stop it?

Mr. Speaker, the close ties between BlackRock, the government, the infrastructure bank, and its profits were not enough. Now KPMG wants to join the closed circles of the Liberal Party and the—