Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work. She knows her riding well and does a great job of representing her constituents.

The short answer is that we need to revisit the auction structure, as we said in our motion. That is a very important aspect that highlights the fact that large urban centres are well served in an oligopolistic market, but the same is not true for rural and remote areas. These companies have no interest in or respect for such areas because they will not make any money by providing them with services. That is a serious problem. The government sometimes has to step in to ensure that everyone has access to high-quality basic services in Canada.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed. I used to have a lot of respect for my colleague and I still do, but not as much now. As the Liberals often do, my colleague referred to votes on certain budget measures, but the truth is that we had to vote on the budget as a whole in a single vote. My colleague is therefore being intellectually dishonest by singling out one of those measures and saying we voted against all of them. Like us, he is surely capable of making a distinction between the two. He is smart enough to realize that sometimes we have to oppose an entire budget, even if we would have liked to support one particular measure.

My colleague may try to mislead Canadians, but they are not stupid. They know that a budget is more than a single measure. I will take no lectures from him. I could criticize the budget, but I would be here all day.

As for the CRTC directive, it does nothing to solve the problem, because competition is practically non-existent. There are only a few big players in the market, which is a serious problem. The measures that have been taken do not promote competition or foster new competitors. New competitors cannot enter the market because it favours the big players, which exploit the system and will do whatever it takes to keep it going. When the market is dominated by a few players, prices are very high, and this directive will do nothing to fix that problem.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke to speak to an issue that is very important to me and to them. Today, we are talking about competitive pricing for telecommunications services, such as the Internet, cellphone services and data on our cellphones and tablets.

In 2019, these are essential services for most Canadians. People cannot do without them today. In fact, the government is increasingly asking Canadians to interact with it via the Internet, to submit forms or make contact, for example. Everyone therefore understands the importance of the Internet in people's daily lives and the importance of having affordable access to it. The service must be reliable, easy to access and competitively priced.

The people of Sherbrooke and all Canadians feel that telecommunications companies are taking advantage of them. They basically feel as though they are being robbed, and I know that is a strong word. Canadians are well aware that access to such services is much cheaper, faster and of better quality in many other countries, including the United States, our closest neighbours. Customers in those countries are paying less for the same services.

I will not repeat all the figures my colleagues have referred to today. My NDP colleagues have mentioned the price difference many times, and I know the people of Sherbrooke are well aware of it. All Canadians know that we are getting fleeced by telecom companies, and that is why the government needs to do something. We have waited long enough and have been giving these companies a free pass to rob our fellow citizens. The government needs to step in.

We are having a bit of a philosophical and ideological debate on the issue of government intervention in this area. We already know that the government is intervening on one aspect of the problem: releasing spectrum, which allows companies to reach consumers through the airwaves. The government already plays a key role. It holds auctions so that those big corporations can obtain shares of the spectrum in order to reach consumers.

Today, we are asking that the government play an even bigger role. We want the government to put an end to the highway robbery being committed by telecom companies. The government must be firm and tell them that we have waited long enough.

The Liberals will say that we need to let the market do its work and that market forces will correct the situation. As companies become freer they are more competitive. This means their prices will be more competitive, since the companies that want to stand out will lower their prices. These companies will reach more consumers and will therefore be successful. Laws and market forces make the difference and allow companies to offer prices comparable to other countries'.

We have been waiting many years for the market to do its work and ease consumers' pain, but it seems that the market forces have only made the situation worse. Canada is trapped with just a handful of telecom giants that abuse Canadians and consumers because they have an oligopoly, not to say monopoly. Sometimes, it seems that they set prices to steal even more from consumers.

It is time for the government to put its foot down and say enough is enough. Obviously, market forces do not work when it comes to this sector. The government must intervene to ensure that Canadians have access to this essential service and that this service is high-quality, fast and available to all citizens at affordable prices.

Today we are calling on the government to be more active on this file. It has to stop patting itself on the back and start doing more than just talk. It claims that good things have been done over the years, when the situation actually got worse.

We hear members across the way say that they have priorities, three in particular, and that affordability is one of them. They mention it in nearly every one of their speeches. However, not a single Liberal has managed to convince me that prices have improved over the past few years. On the contrary, we can see that prices have gone up over the years and that Canadians are not getting their money's worth.

I commend my colleague from Windsor West, who worked on drafting this motion. I commend him for all the research he did to make this proposal based on five points, which I will quickly outline:

The motion proposes a price cap. I repeat that the government needs to put its foot down and stop allowing companies to steal from Canadians. A price cap would be a good first step from the government to stop this highway robbery.

The motion then suggests that the government abolish data caps. All Canadians, including our viewers from Sherbrooke, know that data caps make consumers anxious. They are always worried about potentially using too much data, because as soon as they go over the maximum limit by a few bytes, their bills can get quite high. A number of people watching us, and even some of us here in the House, have been surprised by the exorbitant cost of a single gigabyte, which can reach dozens of dollars in extra fees. However, this is an essential service that we should all have access to. The government must therefore abolish the data caps often found in contracts, whether the contract is capped at two gigabytes, five gigabytes or more.

The motion also suggests that we eliminate egregious sales and services practices through a consumers' bill of rights. As we saw with airline passengers' rights, the government did something by establishing the supposed protection for consumers. it could do the same thing for telecommunications and provide even better protections for consumers than what is currently available.

As I was saying earlier, the government has an important role to play in the spectrum auction. We should revisit this structure to prevent the government from pocketing billions of dollars from these auctions without necessarily reinvesting this money in digital infrastructure to improve accessibility and availability in rural and remote communities.

Finally, the government should also direct the CRTC to cancel its broadband implementation policy. This policy does not work for indigenous and remote communities, which will be saddled with substandard services, unlike communities that are predominately located in urban areas.

Internet and telecommunications services are creating a divide between communities and between the standards they are entitled to.

Now more than ever, we must take action. The NDP is proposing to do just that and save Canadians up to $600 a year on their cellphone and Internet services.

I hope that we will have the support of members of the House of Commons to finally stand up to the telecoms and tell them that we refuse to continue to be victims of highway robbery.

[The Environment, June 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, people's anxiety about the economy and the environment is growing. The causes are obvious: the signing of free-trade agreements that hurt workers, a tax regime that is more lenient than ever before towards big business, and the climate emergency.

Canadians expect the federal government to show leadership, but, instead, they are getting an old, $15-billion pipeline. There is clearly no plan. The government is always improvising. Fortunately, the NDP has a climate transition plan that would create 300,000 quality jobs in the green economy.

When will the government follow our example and take appropriate action?

[Criminal Records Act, June 6th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and especially for his expertise. I also thank him for his outstanding command of his files. I know that he has worked very hard on this.

In his speech, he mentioned that government officials, and even the minister, claimed that providing for an automatic system would be too difficult and too much work. I find it somewhat hard to believe that that was the excuse that the department and the minister himself came up with, considering the billions of dollars they have at their disposal. The Parole Board of Canada may have a hard time managing its workload, but I still believe that the Government of Canada, with its $360-billion annual budget, should have the means to set up an automatic system.

Can my colleague elaborate further on this surprising, absurd answer from the government, namely, that it does not have the means or the capacity to grant automatic pardons? I find that hard to believe.

[Canada Revenue Agency, June 6th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, regarding the KPMG affair, the Minister of National Revenue promised to, and I quote, “exhaust all judicial avenues”. She failed.

There is no longer a single tax evader who is afraid of this incompetent minister. On the contrary, she is sending a clear message that she will cut a nice little secret deal with any wealthy individuals caught cheating. The minister wants more transparency, so let us start today with a few questions.

When did the minister become of aware of this new amnesty? Did she think it was appropriate?

If not, what did she do to stop it?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, June 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I cannot respond to every point my colleague raised, so I will focus on the specific question at the end of his remarks.

That is a perfect example of the government saying one thing and doing another. Here is another one. The government decided to spend $15 billion in public money to buy an existing pipeline and expand it, which will cost at least another $10 billion, for a total of $15 billion invested in fossil fuels.

The government says it is taking care of the environment, but it is also investing in a liquefied natural gas project when what we need to do is transition to renewables. That is what we have been saying for years, and we are saying it again today. We need to stop investing in fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas. We need to invest in the energy sources of the future. That is where the government should be investing Canadians' money. We have no problem with the private sector financing projects. What we have a problem with is the government spending massive amounts of public money on fossil fuel projects rather than investing in renewable energy and the green economy of the future.

The Liberals and Conservatives are like two peas in pod on all these issues. They do everything for the economy and nothing for the environment.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, June 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, that is a good way to describe what happened during the last election campaign. This is not the first time we have heard it said that the Liberals signal left and then turn right. That is a very old expression. It is a rather dangerous thing to do on the road. However, that is exactly what this government did with the many budgetary measures it introduced over the past few years. It signalled one way during the election campaign and then turned the other, hoping that people would not remember when it came time for the next election. We are here to remind Canadians that they were hoodwinked during the last election campaign and that this time they do not have to go back to the Conservatives' austerity.

The Conservatives make dangerous decisions for the safety of workers. Canadians also do not have to go back to a party that says one thing and then does the opposite, a party that makes promises and then shamelessly breaks them. They have a credible and reliable option. The NDP has always been on the right side of the debates in the House, and we will live up to Canadians' expectations if they give us a chance. That is what I sincerely hope for the next election campaign.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, June 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, from what we heard in committee, one thing was clear. Although the government's intention was to make housing and home ownership more accessible, this first-time homebuyer incentive, also known as a shared equity mortgage, will not achieve its goal. Aspiring homebuyers must qualify for a mortgage from a financial institution before they can apply to the much-touted incentive program for 5% to 10% of the down payment.

The officials from the CMHC and the Department of Finance were not even able to provide any details on this program. They did not know what the 5% to 10% share of equity meant in practical terms. Would there be active involvement? If the homeowner did renovations that increased the property value, how would the added value be shared out?

All of the questions on this aspect were very important. The government is saying it will have a share in property owned by Canadians, but it is being stingy with details. Ultimately, this measure will not even make housing more accessible, because Canadians can only access the program if, and only if, they qualify for a mortgage. This measure is being misrepresented by the government.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, June 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

She heard the many witnesses in committee who spoke about poverty reduction and the national housing strategy, which are two major parts of Bill C-97.

I may repeat myself here. The member should already know my position on poverty, since she serves on the committee with me. Frankly, I think that the government set its sights too low. The United Nations' first sustainable development goal is the elimination of poverty, not the reduction of poverty, which is what the Liberal government is proposing. The government set its sights too low by simply planning to reduce poverty by 50%. It could have gone even further and created a plan to eradicate poverty, which should be the goal of ever member in this House.

The government simply decided to set a target for reducing poverty. Once this target is met, the advisory council will be dissolved and we will move on. The same goes for housing. The Liberals had to backtrack and adjust their bill along the way because experts were unanimous in saying that the bill was seriously flawed. The government does not even recognize housing as a fundamental right. They fortunately rectified the situation, but they missed their first chance and had to fix things.