Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Taxation, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary is trying to draw a distinction between Netflix Canada and Netflix USA. I know the two are different. However, he avoided answering my question about Netflix USA subscriptions that are not subject to GST. That was probably intentional, so I would like him to comment on this specific issue. Netflix USA sells a product to Canadian consumers and, unlike its competitors, does not have to collect GST.

Can my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, explain to me why a foreign company is exempt from the tax rules that apply to Canadian businesses? Why are Canadian consumers not paying tax on Netflix subscriptions?

[Taxation, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in this adjournment debate, I am pleased to follow up on a question that I asked the Minister of Revenue, but was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It seems as though he is the one who will be answering again this evening.

My question primarily has to do with the Netflix agreement. Everyone is starting to understand how this agreement gives Netflix a tax advantage over its competitors. I want to follow up on this issue and on the government's completely twisted logic.

Last week, the government kept spouting the same empty rhetoric to explain why it decided to give Netflix a tax holiday. This tax holiday was granted in exchange for an investment, but there is no guarantee of this investment. Netflix is getting a tax holiday in exchange for the infamous agreement presented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. This is what I would like to talk about today.

The government gave a foreign company a tax break for doing business in Canada without having to abide by same tax rules as its competitors. This company is doing business with Canadian consumers. When it sells a product to consumers in Canada, it does not have to charge GST or federal sales tax because the government is allowing this situation to continue. The government is allowing a company to sell a product, in this case a subscription to Netflix, without charging consumers any GST.

According to the government and its twisted logic, this is not a problem because that is just how things work. That is the government's reason for not forcing Netflix to charge GST. It is possible to make Netflix charge sales tax because several other countries have already done so. Although Netflix is an American company that operates all over the world, it pays sales tax in some countries. Most countries actually have taxes associated with the sale of goods and services.

Canada can make Netflix charge sales tax. It is possible. The argument that the government cannot do this does not hold water. In fact, the government is not even using that argument. In the beginning, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that it was too complicated and that it would require an international agreement to make Netflix charge sales tax. That is completely untrue.

Now the government's argument is that it does not want to impose a new tax on consumers. Based on the government's twisted logic, the GST is a new tax. This is like telling huge multinationals like Target or Walmart that when they come to Canada to sell their goods and services, they will not have to charge their customers GST at the checkout because that would be a new tax. This is like telling a new company that sets up shop in Canada that we cannot ask it to charge GST because that would be a new tax, and Canadians cannot afford any new taxes. That is the logic the Liberals are using today. In other words, they are saying that a foreign company or multinational that has a physical presence in Canada does not have to charge GST, although the store next door does.

Can my colleague explain how the government came up with this logic? How is the GST a new tax for businesses?

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on this bill. My colleague talked about the fact that journalists picked up the story and covered it for quite a while, since there were so many cash for access fundraising events.

Does my colleague think the Liberals decided to take this approach only because they were caught red-handed? There was a bit of a public outcry. Canadians were not happy that their government could more or less be bought off and that it had no scruples about holding this kind of fundraising activity. Does my colleague think that if the government's practices had not come to light there would be no Bill C-50? Does my colleague think the government would have continued doing what it was doing in secret?

This is an easy response to a problem exposed by the media and the public, who were very upset by this.

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask a question of my colleague who has not been in the House for a long time. I would like to know what he thinks the government's real intentions are on this issue.

The Liberals decided to make a very small change to the system in order to make it more transparent because the political financing system consists of organizing cash for access events. However, the government decided to continue to give people access to government members in exchange for substantial donations to the Liberal Party.

Was it impossible for the government to even consider completely doing away with this system of political financing because it is working so well for senior members of the Liberal Party and bringing in so much money for the party?

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, based on what my colleague just said, one would assume that she is completely against the concept of cash in exchange for access to ministers, for example. Considering the answer she just gave, it would seem that she opposes the entire concept.

I wonder if she can explain why these fundraisers granting privileged access to people were allowed even before the Liberals were elected.

Why are the Conservatives suddenly now saying that they completely oppose this practice when they could have simply banned it a long time ago?

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I am wondering whether he thinks that expectations were high. Given what the Liberals said during the last election campaign, most Canadians had very high expectations regarding electoral reform and our democratic institutions in general. However, things are done very differently here in Ottawa.

What does my colleague think about the government's record on this issue to date and does he think that the government will be able to do better with regard to democratic institutions between now and 2019? The Liberal Party's only legacy over its four and a half years in office will be Bill C-50.

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague to try to read a Liberal's mind and figure out the real motivation behind this bill. I apologize in advance if he is unable to do so.

Does my colleague believe that, at the end of the day, the Liberals figured that Canadians were upset about events such as those granting privileged access to ministers and the Prime Minister and decided to do something about it? They like those events so much that the only thing they could think of was to advertise them just a little more.

Does my colleague believe that that was the Liberals' train of thought? Instead of ending the practice, they simply decided to make it a little more transparent.

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. My question relates to the substance of the issue, the motivation for the bill, specifically the fundraising events that suggest the possibility of access to ministers and the Prime Minister in exchange for a substantial amount of money.

I am wondering whether my colleague is okay with that practice, since all Bill C-50 does is formalize the practice and make it more transparent. The bill gives the public more information, but it does not change anything about the fundamental issue, since it allows for the practice to continue.

Basically, I want to know my colleague's thoughts on a political party engaging in cash for access. Does he agree with this practice? My question refers more to the substance, rather than the form, of the bill before us today.

[Canada Elections Act, February 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it actually matters little what legislation is in force, whether it is the Conflict of Interest Act or the Canada Elections Act. I am just afraid that the Prime Minister continues to think that the laws do not apply to him, that they are for others, and that he can do what he wants. Basically, if he contravenes the Conflict of Interest Act, he just pardons himself and acts as if nothing has happened.

Unfortunately, by being found guilty by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for his trip to a private island, he has certainly broken Canadians' trust in our institutions and in the office of Prime Minister. He is supposed to be the first to comply with the laws of Canada. In this case, do not take my word for it; it was the Ethics Commissioner who found him guilty of four violations of the act.

How can we therefore trust a Prime Minister who, with his fellow ministers and Liberal members of Parliament, continues to enact new legislation while having no scruples about contravening it and giving himself a pardon right afterwards?

[Canada Elections Act, February 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague heard the last part of my speech, but the basic problem is that the bill does not solve the problem of cash for access. It just formalizes it and makes it even more official.

My colleague says that it will provide for greater accountability from members of cabinet who take part in these activities, but that is not true. They will simply be able to say that they only had private meetings with rich people. What does that change in the lives of ordinary Canadians? The bill just brings to light that privileged access exists in our democracy. It simply makes it more transparent. The people involved will not be more accountable.

I also do not know why the hon. member is trying to compare cabinet members, the executives, with members of Parliament and even with a leader who is not even a member of this House. I do not understand why he is trying to compare apples and oranges. That never ends very well.