Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard for his remarks earlier on Bill C-57.

This morning's announcement casts a pall over this bill to strengthen sustainable development laws. The government announced that it is prepared to spend $4.7 billion to help a Texas company transport Alberta oil west to Asian markets.

The government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance are ready to write a cheque for at least $4.5 billion to transport Alberta crude oil west to Asian markets. That oil will make its way to refineries in those markets by oil tanker.

My question for my colleague is a simple one. How can he justify talking about sustainable development today when his government is doing the opposite?

[Federal Sustainable Development Act, May 29th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the essence of this morning's debate, the time allocation motion.

Although my colleagues across the way seem to want to focus on the substance of the bill this morning, the essence of today's debate is to determine why the government is choosing to limit debate on a bill for the 34th time.

The most recent experience with this related to the bill to amend the Canada Elections Act. In the last Parliament, the Prime Minister swore that he would never limit debate on electoral reform legislation. Last week, he did exactly the same thing as the Conservatives. This is the 34th time in the 42nd Parliament that a minister moves a time allocation motion, even though members like the one from Winnipeg North constantly rose to oppose time allocation motions in the last Parliament.

I would therefore like to know why the minister is defending a time allocation motion today when her party always stood against these motions in the last Parliament and before that.

[Privacy, May 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with the emergence of financial technology, effective privacy protections are essential, yet the government is muddling along blindly with its innovation agenda. The alarm was sounded last week by the Privacy Commissioner, who warned that the budget bill does not give adequate consideration to privacy.

However, the Minister of Finance is yet again too busy with his banking buddies, who are profiting off our personal information.

Why did the minister not consult either consumers or the Privacy Commissioner when drafting his bill?

[Marijuana, May 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government deliberately chose to tax medical marijuana in its Bill C-74.

Canadians who have a prescription to purchase medical cannabis are already required to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month to buy enough for their own needs. The Liberals had a chance to address that yesterday in committee, but they outright rejected the NDP's amendments.

How does the Prime Minister explain to the 270,000 patients in Canada who use medical cannabis that his bill will make their cannabis even more expensive?

[Business of Supply, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate that the Department of Finance does not have the breakdown of such an important tax tool.

According to the information we have, $500 million in stock option deductions were used by 75 senior business executives. Obviously, we are talking about the most profitable companies in Canada. That is an average of $6 million per executive.

Can the minister confirm whether those numbers are correct?

[Business of Supply, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate that the minister did not answer my question about the objective of this tax tool that is used by hundreds of business executives.

What is the Department of Finance breakdown of the heaviest users of these stock options in Canada by income?

[Business of Supply, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Chair, in the time I have left, I would like to move on to another topic and another Liberal government promise. The Liberal government voted in favour of one of our motions on the stock option deduction loophole. The minister himself used the stock option deduction in his company, Morneau Shepell, and he promised to review and cap it.

What does he believe is the tax objective of this stock option deduction?

[Business of Supply, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Chair, I am going to quote the agreement because the minister does not seem to understand all the ramifications and effects of such an agreement. The backgrounder for the agreement that was tabled in the House says that the active business income from a Canadian company's foreign affiliate can be paid to the Canadian parent company in the form of dividends that are exempt from Canadian taxes.

Can the minister confirm that, under these provisions, the dividends paid to the Canadian parent company are exempt from Canadian taxes?

[Business of Supply, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Chair, the answer is zero, and the foreign companies established in those countries pay zero taxes. He is saying that the purpose of the tax information exchange agreements is to exchange tax information. That is obvious.

Did the Minister of Finance know that foreign companies in Grenada do not have to pay taxes and do not have to file an income tax return with a revenue agency?

[Business of Supply, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Chair, on another related topic, the government signed two new tax information exchange agreements with Antigua and Barbuda and with Grenada not that long ago, in 2017. Can my colleague, the Minister of Finance tell us the tax rate of these two countries with which we recently signed agreements? It was under his mandate, so I imagine that he has the information right now.