Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Pharmacare, February 6th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks and talks but does not actually do anything.

My constituents are tired of seeing the wealthy exploit our system while they struggle to make ends meet and to pay for medication.

I met a 70-year-old man in Sherbrooke who told me that he faced a tough decision on his last visit to the pharmacy. He had three prescriptions, but he could only afford to get one filled. It is disgraceful that this kind of thing is happening in a country where access to a doctor is free. Access to the drugs prescribed by the doctor is not free.

Why is the Prime Minister telling my constituent to wait for yet another report, when he could have taken action at any time in the three years he has been in office?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech and for reminding us of the NDP's responsible approach to this issue.

Compared to the Conservatives' approach of jumping on any opportunity to cut the public service, and the Liberals' approach of shutting the door and refusing to find solutions with those involved, the NDP's approach is responsible.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts and put this into perspective.

A total of 5,500 jobs represents a lot of people. This will also have a significant impact on the economy. Our thoughts are with the families in Oshawa affected by job losses there. The Oshawa community is losing 2,600 jobs.

Could my colleague tell us what these 5,500 jobs—more than double that other number—represent to communities like Jonquière and Shawinigan? All members agree that that was bad news out of Oshawa. Would it also be bad news for the regions of Jonquière and Shawinigan if the Conservatives were to do as planned and implement their austerity 2.0 plan overnight and cut 5,500 jobs?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked an excellent question. The truth is that the Conservatives choose unanimous motions from the National Assembly when it suits them. If the unanimous motions do not suit their purposes, they do not get up here in the House to say that they are defending Quebec and its interests and explain how the Conservatives are always there for Quebec. The Conservatives are only there when it suits them and when the unanimous motions are consistent with their Conservative ideology. That was true of the previous Conservative government, and it is true today. When it does not suit them, they are not on the side of the majority of Quebeckers, as with the energy east issue.

My question concerns the fact that the member seems to be putting the cart before the horse. She says that she wants to adopt this motion today and then start discussions to come up with the ideal solution to make life easier for Quebeckers and protect jobs. She should have done that first, like the NDP did.

The NDP has taken a serious, credible and responsible approach. We realized that, under the current circumstances, this is not possible. Jobs are at stake. We are talking about 5,500 jobs. When it was announced that 2,500 or 2,600 jobs would be lost at GM, the House unanimously condemned that decision. Today, we are talking about 5,500 jobs. When it comes to the federal public service, it seems like the Conservatives do not care about jobs.

What does my colleague have to say about the concern that these workers have and the fact that she is putting the cart before the horse and did not do her homework before introducing this motion?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s remarks.

Earlier, in another speech, he tried to pit the 5,500 employees of the Canada Revenue Agency in Quebec against the 8.3 million Quebeckers who are affected by this issue. I think that this highlights exactly what the Conservatives think about this issue. They continue to do what they always do, which is to divide and conquer. That is what they are trying to do today. They will not admit it, and it seems that he avoided, perhaps intentionally, doing so in his speech as well. It appears as though they do not want to keep dividing people, as the member himself did earlier when he pitted the 5,500 families and communities that depend on these jobs against 8.3 million Quebeckers.

Can he clarify his thoughts on that and tell us if he is really trying to play these groups against each other?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the government did not do.

She used the analogy of a lake, saying we should be able to see the bottom before jumping in. I am not sure that analogy totally works here, incidentally.

The problem is that the government has done no due diligence to confirm whether it was possible, whether there were any solutions or whether such a proposal was even a good idea. It simply dismissed it outright.

Why did my colleague say it is important to see what is at the bottom of the lake, when she did not even bother taking the time to do so herself? She did not even look at what was there. She simply decided to stay on the shoreline. Why did she not check to see what was at the bottom of the lake?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the two responses the hon. member just gave prove that the Conservatives are not serious about this. When asked important questions on the impact that this proposal will have on where we go from here, the Conservatives are unable to provide specific answers. If the Government of Quebec becomes the tax collector, that will raise questions of jurisdiction regarding federal taxes collected from jurisdictions other than Quebec.

My colleague also talked about the definition of income. His colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord also explained the definition in great detail. He said the definition of income is different in Quebec because certain expenses are taken into account to calculate income.

Does my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge prefer Quebec's definition of income or the definition used in every other province?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone who cannot lecture anyone about painting the Quebec Bridge, it is certainly a Conservative member who did nothing for 10 years, especially after the Quebec NDP members pressured him to do so. The Conservatives never did anything when they had the chance.

Today, they are talking a good game as though this were important to them, but their actions speak volumes. In fact, as actions speak louder than words, I had the opportunity to table an amendment to include respect for workers and the protection of federal public servants in the motion. It was an extremely simple amendment that pretty much said the same thing the Conservatives are saying, but obviously, they have no intention of walking the talk, since the sponsor of the motion, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, rejected my amendment.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to add a simple clause to protect jobs? When a party says something but refuses to put it in writing, they show their true colours.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

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

His speech proved that on this subject, only one party is serious, responsible and ready to tackle this issue, to discuss it and to try to find a solution to make things easier for Canadians. On the one side, we have the Conservatives, who would do anything to get rid of 5,000 public service jobs for the sake of their balanced budget ideology. They would jump at an opportunity like this to balance the budget, even if it meant sacrificing families and entire regions whose economies depend on these jobs.

On the other side, we have the Liberals, who are stonewalling. They would not even consider discussing an important issue that would make life easier for Canadians.

Why did my colleague, as a government member and as parliamentary secretary, not do the responsible thing, which is to sit down and try to find a solution to make life easier for Canadians, especially Quebeckers, instead of shooting the idea down completely?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his remarks. He obviously cares about this issue.

However, he will have to explain to his constituents in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord why his colleague, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska and the sponsor of the motion, opposed an amendment that sought specifically to protect jobs, when he had spent most of his own speech talking about defending them. Furthermore, the member's speech was not well thought out, since he proposed solutions that made no sense to the people involved. I therefore have a very simple question for the member.

Why did the Conservatives refuse to include any mention of protecting jobs in their motion? If they truly believed in it, they would do more than talk about it. They would include it in their motion.

Why did they refuse such a simple motion that sought to do exactly what the member said repeatedly during his speech, but that the Conservatives refuse to put in writing?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for upsetting my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. Unfortunately, yes, we in the NDP respect workers. If the Conservatives do not feel the same and do not respect workers and their families, that is their choice. They will see how that works out for them in the affected regions come election day. They might find that people care about their jobs, about providing for their families. The Conservatives are making entire families suffer.

This is another opportunity to remember that today we are seeing the Conservatives' true colours, since they do not care about workers and their well-being. They are doing everything they can to eliminate public servants from the public service of Canada.