Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 75 of 687
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If we want to get to the bottom of the tale of the shell companies set up by KPMG, if we want to get to the bottom of the tale of the thousands of small investors like Ms. Watson who were swindled, the only solution, according to the experts, is a public inquiry. Tax law expert André Lareau is one of the people saying that.
The role of requesting an inquiry has been assigned to you, Minister, and no one else. I also want to remind you that it was thanks to a whistle-blower inside the CRA that we got wind of the deals that were offered to the Isle of Man fraudsters. The reason the CRA's investigators are unhappy is that the order came from higher up. It takes a public inquiry.
Are you going to call a public inquiry, as you are given the authority to do by section 231.4 of the Income Tax Act, yes or no?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
I thank my colleague for his question.
As I said, I can understand very well. I have enormous sympathy for the people who have been victims of fraud. I know how much this must affect them.
Out of respect for the obvious principles of judicial independence, I believe that politicians should never interfere in investigations.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
It isn't interference.
Minister, you are the only person in Canada with the power to shed light on it and get to the bottom of things. That is the power you have. You are the minister. Sympathy is not enough.
Are you going to initiate a public inquiry?
I understand it's a no. The message you are sending to everyone who has been swindled is that you are sympathetic, but you aren't going to do anything. That is unacceptable. That choice is the choice to do nothing to get it moving, to do nothing to get to the bottom of things. That is a definite sign of incompetence.
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
I can understand my colleague's frustrations. For our part, we govern. We establish priorities.
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
That is what my colleague will never be able to do. I have told him repeatedly that the Canada Revenue Agency is independent. I cannot initiate an investigation—
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
You are the only person who can request a public inquiry. It would seem that you do not even know this. That is unacceptable.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Mr. Ste-Marie, the minister has the floor. I don't want to intervene here, but I would suggest that members go back and look at Mr. Gallivan's answer on section 231.4, in which he talked about what kind of inquiry that is under the act. I'd suggest members look at that comment. Look at section 231.4 in relation to the words Mr. Gallivan said earlier.
Mr. Julian.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I want to get back to the revelations this morning about wealthy Canadians, the ultra-rich with fortunes of tens of millions of dollars. Over the course of the past six years under your mandate, Madam Minister, there has not been a single charge laid around income tax evasion.
Why have the ultra-rich in this country been treated under your ministry with kid gloves?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, it is completely false to say that the ultra-rich have been treated with kid gloves. At least, that is not how I will treat them, because I have absolutely no respect for the people who defraud the tax system.
I don't know what my colleague is trying to do, but if he thinks we are going to solve everything, I think he is naive, because this is a global problem. As I said a little earlier, the ultra-rich pay ultra-lawyers and ultra-tax experts and do everything in their power not to pay their fair share.
That is why it is so important for our government to give the CRA the resources and tools needed to carry out investigations, which are ongoing at present. We have not yet achieved the anticipated results, but I can tell you that the CRA has done its job. I congratulate it.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
You have not laid any charges or got any convictions.
There are absolutely no prosecutions, no convictions. We have seen it in so many cases. We have these victims like Janet Watson who have lost their life savings in the Cinar fraud, the Mount Real fraud or the Northshield fraud.
The government and you as minister have both the Income Tax Act and the Inquiries Act. You have two tools to call a public inquiry into this, to get to the bottom of it and to get justice for the victims.
Why do you consistently refuse to use the tools that you have to put in place a public inquiry so that the victims can get justice?
View Diane Lebouthillier Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, my colleague said that no investigation has been carried out, which is totally false. If he had listened to what Mr. Gallivan said, he would know that there are cases before the court as we speak. We have not yet achieved the anticipated results. It is not up to me to tell lawyers and the court whether they should proceed with a charge or not, because that is a completely independent process in which I do not intervene. What my colleague said is not true, and I urge him not to misinform the public.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We will have a lineup. I will go to Mr. Lawrence, and I want to leave room for Mr. Fast to ask a question on the end of that round. Then I will go to Ms. Koutrakis.
On this inquiry business, I have to ask this question. It's either to the minister or Mr. Gallivan. Do you have the tools to call a public inquiry under section 231.4 of the act? Are the tools there for you to call what we would consider a public inquiry?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-22 17:02
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Having recently used that tool once in 30 years, I note that it was not a public inquiry and I don't believe the intent was for that tool to be used for a public inquiry.
I would be happy to get a more detailed answer to you off-line, but, again, our single use of it was absolutely not a public inquiry. The intent of it was to compel the taxpayer under audit to give information to the CRA, as opposed to making it public.
Results: 61 - 75 of 687 | Page: 5 of 46

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data