Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Natural Resources, May 10th, 2019]

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?

[Quebec Diabetes Association, May 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege this year of serving as honourary chair of the 19th annual golf tournament organized by Diabète Estrie, a non-profit organization in my region made up of people with diabetes, their loved ones, and health care professionals who are trying to make things easier for people with this disease and improve their quality of life.

With the money raised, Diabète Estrie will be able to send kids aged eight to 15 with type 1 diabetes to specialized camps. The money also helps the organization pursue its mission to inform, promote awareness, provide training, support research, ensure service provision and defend the rights of diabetics to help them live with this disease in their day-to-day lives.

I encourage everyone to come out to this event on June 7, as part of Quebec's diabetes prevention week.

In closing, I want to thank all the members of the organizing committee as well as the many volunteers who dedicate themselves to this cause every year.

[Canadian Heritage, May 8th, 2019]

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?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, May 7th, 2019]

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?

[Petitions, May 6th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by the people of Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships, who are calling for better funding for feminist organizations. They want to draw the attention of the Government of Canada to the underfunding of feminist women's organizations in Sherbrooke, the Eastern Townships and across the country. They are calling for secure, multi-year core operational funding for these organizations. I have the honour to table this petition to draw the attention of the Government of Canada to this issue on their behalf.

[Criminal Code, April 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the NDP caucus to express my support for Bill C-417. I will be brief, because I know everyone wants to see this bill sent to the other place as quickly as possible.

This is a truly common-sense measure, as recognized by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which recommended that the government bring in such an exception for jurors so that they can access mental health services. In many cases, jurors go through traumatic experiences as a result of difficult deliberations. It can be really tough to be part of a jury, to reach a consensus and a final decision, and to come through all that without any lasting effects, any remorse or anything weighing on one's conscience. Offering this support is crucial. Existing legislation prevents jurors from accessing such services and disclosing information relating to jury deliberations, which of course are secret.

It makes sense to let jurors talk to health care professionals who, in any case, are bound by patient confidentiality and cannot disclose anything they hear during their appointments. That would reassure everyone with regard to the importance of the confidentiality of jury deliberations.

It goes without saying that we support such an initiative and that we are asking the other chamber to pass this quickly. It is clear that the senators do not seem to be in any rush on other files, which is unfortunate, because they have in their hands a number of other bills that had the unanimous support of the House. It seems that this bill will also have unanimous support, so we hope that the Senate will study and pass it quickly.

I do not want to take up any more time, because I know that there is not much time left before the end of this 42nd Parliament. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will be brief and that we can move this common-sense bill forward to help those who are having a difficult time dealing with their role and their obligations as jurors.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, to pick up on what my colleague from Louis-Hébert was saying, I will ask a question that the Conservatives have yet to answer. Rightly or wrongly, they get worked up about budgetary deficits every chance they get. What they fail to talk about is how they propose to manage public finances and what their financial framework will be in the upcoming election campaign.

Will it be a balanced framework? If so, how do they plan to balance the budget? Will they, like us, have the courage to collect revenues where they are available in order to fund public services? If not, will the hon. member take the same approach as every other Conservative in this country and make budget cuts or adopt Conservative austerity measures? Which of these options will he campaign on in the upcoming election if he wants to return to a balanced budget?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent contribution to this debate.

When I spoke about this bill, I pointed out that the Liberals' solution to helping youth buy a first home was to increase the amount they can withdraw from their RRSP from $25,000 to $35,000.

In my speech, I directly asked my colleagues if young people in their ridings often knocked on their doors to say that the $25,000 from their RRSPs was not enough and that they wanted more to buy that first home.

I will ask the same question that I asked of all the other members: does my colleague know many young people in his riding of New Westminster—Burnaby who have said that the maximum withdrawal from their RRSP was not enough and that they wanted more to buy a house?

[Government Priorities, April 12th, 2019]

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?

[Justice, April 12th, 2019]

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?