Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to ask my colleague a question. Her speech was very interesting and emotional. I always like to hear her speak, especially about a free trade agreement such as this one, and present the NDP's vision, which I believe is the right vision for Canada. What she said is very important.

I would like to hear her talk more about the problem created by a government or a country that has these types of economic relationships with a country that does not comply with certain basic tax rules. What message does this send to the international community?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to ask a question of my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, who taught tax havens 101 to my Conservative colleagues. I am glad that was done today in the House, because it shows what this is really all about. He did a good job defining what constitutes a tax haven.

As my colleague from Alfred-Pellan said earlier, Canada did not sign an information sharing agreement. In my colleague's view, what message is the government sending when it signs a free trade agreement with a country that is considered a tax haven? What message is the government sending to the international community about the fight against tax havens?

[Canada Post, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, listen to this: Canada Post will soon charge $200 per address in new residential developments, which are obviously located primarily in suburbs and in the regions.

New homebuyers must already pay a municipal tax, a welcome tax, a school tax and a water tax, among others. And now the Conservatives want to impose a postal tax.

As of January 1, for a new neighbourhood with 100 houses, for example, there will be a total of $20,000 in taxes for developers. We can easily imagine that they will pass that on to buyers.

Why do the Conservatives want to impose a new tax on Canadian families?

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to clarify something. This is the third time the hon. member has been asked a question and has not answered it. Are there rules about answering?

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question. He seems to have deliberately avoided the topic we are discussing this evening. My question is quick and simple and has to do with something he has not yet spoken about. I asked this same question earlier and did not get an answer.

Does the member agree with the government amendment to refer the report back to the committee? If so, why?

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask a question. If I understood correctly, the hon. member spoke about recommendations that the government agreed to.

My question is very short and simple: does the hon. member support the amendment of the assistant or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons that seeks to refer the report back to the committee for further consideration?

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech, which helped us to better understand the issue. Unfortunately, although I would like to be, I am not a member of that committee.

I get the impression that the government is asking the committee to waste its time in the coming months. The committee has already submitted a report, and now, in the amendment that we are debating today, the government is asking the committee to review that report and perhaps change it. It seems that the government is asking the committee to waste its time.

Does the hon. member believe, as I do, that the government should not propose this amendment today?

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the Conservatives talk about the budget. They often talk about their economic record, but they seem to have a selective memory when it comes to the economy. They often forget to mention that we currently have the largest deficit in the history of Canada because of the Conservative Party. We also have the largest trade deficit in the history of Canada. That is another fact that the government seems to overlook fairly often. In addition, there are 300,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than there were before the recession. The Conservatives seem to forget about all these facts in their speeches.

Can the member talk about these very real facts? Are there any solutions?

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I really enjoy asking this member questions about the environment, a subject she knows very well. She makes an important contribution here in the House of Commons.

The Conservatives deleted the word “environment” from their website when the NDP pointed out that the Navigable Waters Protection Act was in fact an environmental law and that the website explicitly said that it protected the environment. A few minutes or hours later, all references to the word “environment” were deleted from the website, as if by chance. I do not imagine it was planned.

What does my colleague think of what the Conservatives did? Does she believe that that legislation helped protect the environment?

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is along the same lines as what was said earlier.

Several elements of this bill have nothing to do with the budget, nor are they necessarily connected in any way. I will go back to what one of my colleagues said. The chair of the Standing Committee on Finance asked a Liberal member if he agreed with a specific measure. Since we agree with some parts and disagree with others, should the bill not be split? We should have an opportunity to vote on specific elements of the bill instead of voting on a huge bill that lumps together many different parts. Omnibus bills prevent MPs from doing their job.