Francis Drouin

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's great speech, but I do not accept his arguments. I will remind members why we introduced this bill. To this day, we have no idea who donated to former prime minister Stephen Harper's campaign in 2004. That is one reason for introducing this bill. Similarly, we would like to know who donated to Jagmeet Singh's campaign. On the topic of electoral reform, the NDP and Fair Vote Canada were caught red-handed exchanging information. It might be helpful for Canadians to know whether Fair Vote Canada and its members donated to Jagmeet Singh's campaign. That is very important for transparency in our country. As my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière stated, “what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”. It is important that Canadians know who donated to the opposition leader's campaign and who donated to Jagmeet Singh's campaign.

Why not be more transparent? Why does he oppose transparency here in Parliament?

[Agriculture and Agri-food, December 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our government has set a goal of growing our agricultural exports to $75 billion by 2025.

The agreement between Europe and Canada will contribute to that goal by boosting exports by up to $1.5 billion annually.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House about the measures our government has taken to help farmers, ranchers, and producers capitalize on this agreement and leverage export opportunities?

[Business of Supply, December 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is true this motion is only meant to divide Canadians and prey on their fears. It is actually shameful that the Conservatives are operating this way. I have seen this movie before. We saw it during the 2015 election. We were wondering who was the leader of the official opposition. Now we know who the new boss is. He is the same as the old boss.

My colleague is a new member of Parliament, and I was not here either in the previous years, I want to ask him if he would have stood up to cut $1 billion from the very organizations that do a great job at stopping terrorism in our country. Would he have stood up in the House and voted yea. We know on that side of the House, they all voted to cut security services out of the budget. Would he have done that had he been a member of Parliament then?

[Business of Supply, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the House, none of us is saying that ISIL is a good Samaritan. All of us are condemning Daesh. It is a terrible organization. I also want to remind my colleague, with what the official opposition is portraying, I have seen this movie before. I saw it in the 2015 election. I saw it in 2014 and 2013. The fearmongering that the government is not doing anything on protecting citizens is just completely false.

My dad used to tell me, “Put your money where your mouth is”. I want to ask my colleague, if he believes our government is doing absolutely nothing to fight Daesh, does he agree, whether or not the previous government cut $1 billion out of security services, that was an okay thing to fight ISIS.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, December 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on the first part of the speech by the member for Carleton. He spoke about the infrastructure bank and how all of the risk would be put on the taxpayer. If I recall, one week before the election, he announced a fund in Ottawa, which he should remember. It was called the public transit fund, which would be administered under PPP Canada. PPP Canada issues private sector funds, taxpayer funds, and obviously the proponent of the project would issue his funds as well.

I am wondering if his mind has changed since July 27, 2015, when he announced the public transit fund, which would be administered under PPP Canada, which we know is a public-private partnership, and obviously all of the risk is on the taxpayer. He was just complaining about the infrastructure bank. All I want to know is if he has seen the enlightenment of not issuing a PPP.

[Agricultural Institute of Canada, November 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today the Agricultural Institute of Canada is meeting with members of Parliament from all over Canada. The AIC is Canada's voice for agricultural research and innovation and a world leader in conservation of Canada's land through science.

For 97 years, first as a Canadian Society of Technical Agriculturists, later named the Agricultural Institute of Canada, this great Canadian institution has served farmers by providing credible information for the Canadian agriculture and agrifood sector.

The AIC works hard to help farmers, academics, and industry stakeholders by advocating for and disseminating agricultural research. The AIC offers a variety of programs relating to agricultural accreditation, gender equality, environmental sustainability, and professionalism and ethics.

I encourage all members to attend the AIC reception later today in Room 238-S, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., either before or after they attend the reception at square drill hall.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to supporting Canadian farmers by investing in the growth and innovation of Canada's agrifood sector. We have made considerable investments in Canadian farmers.

The 2017 budget set a clear target to increase our agricultural exports. We know that we have always been and will continue to be there for Canadian farmers.

Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell us about the steps we are taking this week to provide tax relief to our Canadian farmers?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, in 2015, the NDP promised to balance the budget. The member talks about tax evaders and whatnot. We have invested a billion dollars to go after the tax cheats and offshore tax evaders. I am curious to find out if the member tells his constituents that if we had balanced budget, we would not have been able to do that.

We are not sure yet if his new leader will promise to balance the budget as well, which effectively means those members would not be able invest any dollars to go after tax evaders. Have the New Democrats changed their policy or do they still have the “steady as she goes“ policy?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

I could not agree more, Mr. Speaker, and would like to thank my colleague for his fine question. Indeed, the Conservatives often talk about how they only went into deficit during the recession, and yet, the recession happened in 2008-09, and the largest deficit in the history of Canada was recorded in 2010. It had reached $62.5 billion. The Liberals are not even close to that number yet. We have decided to invest in infrastructure because that is what every municipality has asked us to do. As I said earlier, I have yet to meet a mayor who has asked us to stop investing in infrastructure and to stop offering support. We have not gotten that request from a single mayor.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 6th, 2017]

First, Mr. Speaker, stock options do not only benefit wealthy CEOs. They also benefit start-ups. Sometimes, it is the only option they can give investors. I like that the hon. member reminded us of the promises we made during the election, because I, too, remember a promise the NDP made during the same period, which was to balance the budget. Today, the New Democrats are saying that they want us to invest more in the fight against tax evasion, although we have already invested more than $1 billion. I wonder how the NDP would go about investing more while still balancing the budget. Perhaps we should ask the new leader of the NDP, as we are unsure what his position is. Will he balance the budget at all cost, or will he decide to invest?