Steven Blaney

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. My answer is simple: my vote is based on reality.

I am very proud to have voted against measures proposed by the government that increase income taxes for middle-class families so that the rich pay less and Canadians find themselves in an endless deficit and, on top of everything else, that do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

When a student gets a grade of 55%, the teacher can choose whether to pass him or not. In this case, I think that teachers will have no problem failing the government.

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from British Columbia, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

The hon. member came to Lévis in his role as the Coast Guard critic and we proceeded to launch the supply ship Asterix. That ship is the pride of the Royal Canadian Navy. It was a contract that the former Conservative government wanted to give to the Davie shipyard. We all remember the whole political interference mess. We will not talk about the Norman case here this morning or the scandal surrounding how this contract was awarded by the Liberals. Instead we will talk about tax evasion.

I want to thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for his involvement in ensuring that the coast guard can play a role on the three oceans and on maintaining the St. Lawrence Seaway. The coast guard is currently struggling with its aging fleet to ensure that these major waterways can be used for shipping, and so, I thank the hon. member. Like me, he will rise to speak to the bill today. This is Canada's 94th tax agreement. This one is being concluded with Madagascar to reduce and prevent tax evasion and also to avoid double taxation.

We need agreements like this so that the state can fulfill its responsibilities. I just gave an example. The Canadian government is responsible for ensuring that our waterways are navigable and for protecting our sovereignty on the three coasts. This is why we need agreements with other countries, and this is why the countries need revenue to carry out their constitutional duties.

Canada has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that we have a fleet of Coast Guard ships to respond to increasing demands. As we are seeing now, this is a challenge. This winter, a number of ships got stuck in the ice on the St. Lawrence, and it is time for the Liberal government to take concrete action.

As my colleague saw at Davie shipyard, the workers are able to meet the Canadian government's needs. This is relevant, because we are talking about revenue. This revenue would be well spent by the government, because the workers have shown that they can meet deadlines, as was the case with the Asterix.

That being said, I would simply like to remind the people listening that, if we count only the amounts owed by Canadian taxpayers, it is estimated that the government is losing up to $17 billion as a result of tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is how much the public treasury loses each year in unpaid taxes, often because of wealthy people hiding income in tax havens.

Quebec authors have studied this issue, and in addition to individuals, there are companies as well. On that subject, I have here a study by the Conference Board of Canada, which indicates that, compared to other countries that experience loss of revenue due to tax evasion, if we consider the entire tax gap, including taxpayers and companies, we could talk about annual losses of up to $47 billion. That is the magnitude of the problem.

Imagine what we could do with those billions of dollars. I gave the example earlier of the ships we could have for the Coast Guard. Those are just some of the needs that we have.

Just two days ago, a constituent in my riding called me because he has a serious health problem. He has paid into employment insurance all his life. Now, he is in a situation where he has to leave his job to focus on his treatments, and he is limited to 15 meagre weeks of employment insurance. He is unable to get any more assistance from EI.

I would like to remind the House that employers and employees pay the same amounts into the EI program. Of course, the government has financial needs and responsibilities. In this case, it is important that the government be able to collect all of the revenue to which it is entitled. However, the government also has a responsibility to control its spending. That is the important issue before us today. We are talking about a 94th agreement with another country, namely Madagascar. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent reminded us of the relative importance of this agreement compared to our trade with countries like the United States or China. He also reminded us that we must be vigilant in implementing such agreements. As they say, the devil is in the details.

My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent gave us a good example of that this morning. Louis St. Laurent was the prime minister who opened the St. Lawrence Seaway, which the Liberals are currently neglecting to maintain.

My colleague reminded us of the importance of having agreements on tax evasion. He also mentioned that we need to ensure that our laws do not contain any irrelevant provisions or provisions that could constitute loopholes. In its most recent budget bill, the government included legal provisions to create a sort of remediation agreement. That puts the government in a difficult situation. We want to know what this government is trying to hide.

We will support the bill, but we also want to remind the government that it has the responsibility to allow us to openly debate the bills it introduces. Adding legal measures to an 800-page bill that will be studied by the Standing Committee on Finance is not the way to go about that.

Today we are discussing tax evasion, taxation and an agreement with Madagascar. The government is very bad at making sure that taxpayers receive value for their money. The average family pays more income tax. The government has problems when it comes to spending. It is addicted to spending; although it earns revenue, it spends more than it takes in. The irony in Canada is that Canadian families pay more income tax. I have here a very recent study from the Fraser Institute. It is dated February 21. According to this study, most middle-income Canadian families pay higher income tax. According to the same study, middle-income Canadian families pay $1,000 more in income tax each year.

Many studies and many statistics have shown this. We know that the Liberal government is always trying to increase its revenue. We believe that it should at least balance its budgets, but we are in a bottomless pit. Not only must families pay more income tax, their children will have to pick up the pieces. In terms of taxation, the government has no idea where it is going.

On March 19, the government will present its next and last budget. It was supposed to herald a return to a balanced budget, but that will not be the case. The government has lost control of the deficit. As we saw this morning, our veterans are paying the price.

We agree that we should have agreements with other countries—in this case, Madagascar—to limit tax evasion. However, that is not an excuse to make a mockery of Parliament by introducing bills or important elements concerning public confidence in institutions that are being threatened by certain sections of the bill. I hope to be able to address this again a bit later.

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, February 21st, 2019]

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

Today, we are talking about tax evasion. This is the 94th agreement that Canada has proposed signing with another country.

My question is very simple. On the one hand, the government claims to want to put an end to tax evasion, but on the other hand, it is not controlling its spending. The gap between the government's potential revenue and the revenue it actually receives is growing. We must remember that families are spending more on taxes than on food and shelter.

Where is the government going? What does my colleague think could be done so that Quebeckers pay less tax?

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech on Canada's 94th agreement with another country to curb tax evasion and his warning that we should not let this come back to haunt Canada and its taxpayers.

He also told us that he is in favour of reforming the tax system. I would like him to comment on the fact that Canadian families currently pay more taxes under the Liberal government, considering that the benefits it gives with one hand are clawed back with the other. The Fraser Institute released a study to that effect today. Canadian families currently spend more on taxes than on food and shelter.

Is the government headed in the wrong direction? Does it rely on deficits and have a spending problem? Has it lost control of its spending? I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Indigenous Languages Act, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the minister. Why this attempt to muzzle parliamentarians? As my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent mentioned, why limit constructive discussion?

Need I remind the minister, who was at committee yesterday, that the committee's pre-study has already begun? As the minister said, it is an important project that began with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was initiated by the Conservative government in 2007 and reported its findings in 2015. We are now 2019.

Why did the government wait so long? Why is it cutting off debate on such an important bill? Why is it preventing parliamentarians from expressing themselves when this in no way would interfere with the progress of this bill, which is going to be studied anyway? As the minister knows, there will even be special meetings.

The opposition parties have agreed, given the importance of this bill, to extend the hours of debate at committee to ensure that we can hear from all the witnesses. Why is the minister muzzling parliamentarians? Why is the government showing such contempt for the elected representatives of the people?

[Petitions, February 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table e-petition 1879, initiated on October 11, 2018, by Michel Masse, the president of the Comité des citoyens du Vieux-Québec. The petition calls on the Government of Canada to end the attack on the heritage integrity of Quebec City and use the original stone to restore the Quebec City Citadel.

This petition was signed by many people in Quebec, but also from across the country, from British Columbia to Newfoundland and Labrador. This applies to preserving heritage buildings across the country. These petitioners are concerned about this Liberal government's complacency on this issue.

[Indigenous Languages Act, February 7th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I want to come back to something that I witnessed here in the House of Commons. I was here when prime minister Harper issued a heartfelt apology to residential school survivors on behalf of the Canadian government. At the time, that was really something, because it initiated the broader reconciliation process, which is a long and difficult road given the harm that has been done and its lasting effects.

I am very proud of Prime Minister Harper and Minister Duncan for beginning the process of transferring the responsibility for education to first nations. That is a critical issue and it also affects what we are talking about today. That work is under way, and I am very proud of that.

I hope that the bill that we are examining today will help strengthen the pride that indigenous peoples have in their culture and their languages.

[Indigenous Languages Act, February 7th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who is doing important work.

However, he shares a fault with his boss, the Prime Minister: whenever something goes wrong, he blames everyone else. We can see this happening with the indigenous file. I had a chance to go into communities like Pakuashipi, where residents have major concerns about health and access to clean drinking water. Our colleagues are constantly challenging the government on these issues.

I have two things to say to my colleague. The first is about the money that is being invested, and the second is about the way it is being invested. Our Conservative government established a principle of transparency, because it is important for members of indigenous communities to know where federal money is going and how it is being shared among communities. Sadly, and this is another example of what I was saying, this government says one thing and does another. It advocates transparency, but it hid the way federal funds are transferred to communities. That shows a lack of transparency.

It is the government that decides when to table bills. We have no say over that. However, it is tabling this bill at the eleventh hour. We are ready to put in the work, but we do not want to mess this up, because the relationship between first nations and the Canadian government is too important.

[Indigenous Languages Act, February 7th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise in the House and applaud the excellent speech by my colleague from Bow River, as well as his knowledge of and commitment to indigenous issues in Canada.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, our indigenous affairs critic. She is doing very important work on a very sensitive file.

Before rising, I listened to several speeches. I would like to come back to something said by a colleague from Vancouver Island, the member for Courtenay—Alberni. He said something that was very important and, in my view, in keeping with the tone set today. He said that language defines our identity. That is the very crux of the bill introduced today. We are talking about the identity of not just anyone, but of the people who lived here before the arrival of Europeans.

As my colleague mentioned, this debate is taking place in the new House of Commons located in the West Block.

On June 11, 2008, I was in the House and I had the opportunity and privilege to listen to Prime Minister Stephen Harper offer a full apology to residential school survivors on behalf of all Canadians.

What is the link between that apology and the bill before us today?

The bill before us today draws on the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, established by the Conservative government in 2008.

A six-year study was conducted. During that time, we gathered a lot of testimony that at times was very emotional from indigenous people who attended these schools.

Prime Minister Harper said that for more than a century, residential schools separated more than 150,000 indigenous children from their families and their communities. Nearly seven generations of young people were in some way uprooted from their culture and language while they were attending school. As my colleague from Vancouver Island said, language is an essential part of identity.

Remarkably, the hon. member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs delivered his speech in the Mohawk language. He said that when we learn a language, we become open to a new culture. He has opened himself up to the Mohawk culture.

As someone with an Irish-sounding name who was lucky enough to learn French growing up, I am keenly aware of linguistic issues. That is why, as a Conservative and a Quebecker, I am proud of our party's position. Our party will support the bill since we want it to go even further.

I also want to revisit one of the points raised by Mr. Harper. He stated, and I quote:

Two primary objectives of the residential school system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture.

That sends a shiver down my spine.

He also said, “It has taken extraordinary courage for the thousands of survivors that have come forward to speak publicly about the abuse they suffered.”

As everyone knows, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and a support program for aboriginal people affected by the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement were put in place.

I would actually like to come back to the recommendations that were made. Three calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada report relate to the subject we are discussing here today. Calls to action 13, 14 and 15 call on the federal government to recognize that aboriginal rights include aboriginal language rights.

Recommendation 14 calls on the federal government to enact an aboriginal languages act that incorporates the following principles.

i. Aboriginal languages are a fundamental and valued element of Canadian culture and society, and there is an urgency to preserve them; ii. Aboriginal language rights are reinforced by the Treaties; iii. The federal government has a responsibility to provide sufficient funds for Aboriginal-language revitalization and preservation; iv. The preservation, revitalization, and strengthening of Aboriginal languages and cultures are best managed by Aboriginal people and communities; v. Funding for Aboriginal language initiatives must reflect the diversity of Aboriginal languages.

These recommendations were made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2015, if I remember correctly. It is now 2019. As my colleague from Bow River said, the government waited a long time. We are now approaching the end of this Parliament, and the Liberals seem to be steamrolling through this, even though the Prime Minister promised to address the issue more than two years ago.

In essence, we support this bill. As my colleague just said, we want to do a thorough job, to make sure this bill achieves its objectives. The Assembly of First Nations supports the bill, as does the Métis Nation, but the Inuit are quite dissatisfied, so we need to give this bill careful consideration. Like my colleague from Bow River, I am privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We want to examine this bill to ensure that it both meets these communities' needs and achieves the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's objectives.

That brings me to an important point. I just mentioned it briefly, and my colleague talked about it too. The problem is that we currently have a government that knows how to talk the talk but takes far too long to walk the walk. Drawing things out like this could strain the trust between indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada. My colleague shared some examples of that.

I want to share a quote from Chantal Hébert:

By taking important but essentially symbolic steps that capture the attention of Canadian voters but ultimately do nothing to fundamentally change the reality that indigenous peoples face, the Trudeau government is risking creating an even wider divide between the dashed expectations of the first nations and the public's openness towards them.

We have a responsibility to do things right in a reasonable amount of time. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission made its recommendations more than three years ago. The government has introduced a bill at the end of this Parliament. Trust between the Canadian government and the first nations is fragile, and we plan to work seriously and diligently to maintain that trust.

[Liberal Shipbuilding Strategy, February 6th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, in their desperate mad rush to try to launch the construction of a support ship, the Liberals are indefinitely postponing construction of several Coast Guard ships.

The Liberal shipbuilding strategy is marred by delays, improvisation, and cost overruns. Deadlines keep getting extended and not a single ship has been delivered. Worse yet, officials confirm that the design of this new ship is not even ready.

Confusion, bungling, manoeuvring, and no results—such is the Liberal track record.

The workers at Davie shipyard meet their deadlines without cost overruns and get nothing but Liberal contempt and unemployment in return.

With its aging fleet, the Coast Guard is struggling to keep the St. Lawrence ice free, but the Liberals say that is not their problem.

Liberal contempt and disdain toward Quebec and our Royal Canadian Navy is at an all-time high. However, in October, people will have the unique opportunity to fire these arrogant Liberals and elect a Conservative government that respects—