Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise following my colleague from Drummond, who has been working on this file for some time. He has put a lot of effort into it. I would also like to thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who introduced the motion before us today. This motion seeks to replace a process for appointing officers of Parliament that is obviously completely broken.

For the benefit of my colleagues and of those listening or watching, it is worth providing some context for the motion we have introduced today. Had the government followed a proper appointment process in the case of the Commissioner of Official Languages, we would not have introduced this motion today. It is therefore a sequence of events and a context that have forced us to propose a solution to the problem at hand. We certainly do not want to have to face it again because, as we know, officers of Parliament, in all the positions we are familiar with, are individuals who must demonstrate the greatest possible independence and impartiality. We need only think of the position of Chief Electoral Officer. Everyone here will agree that this position requires the utmost impartiality. Everyone in the House has gone through an electoral process and will agree that the individual who oversees elections must obviously be impartial.

However, going back to the appointment of the Commissioner of Official Languages, this all began because the commissioner, Mr. Fraser, was retiring. As the position was becoming vacant, the government launched a selection process to accept applications. Everything was going well up to that point. Many of us in the House know what happened next. The government announced that a candidate was appointed. However, she was chosen not only because of her qualifications, but also for her very close ties to certain senior officials in the office of the Prime Minister. She herself admitted it, although the Minister of Canadian Heritage tried to deny this. She had contacted officials in the office of the Prime Minister directly in an attempt to bypass the appointment process. Obviously, her connections got her the position.

My time is up. I will be pleased to continue later on today.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention in this debate.

He will not be surprised to hear me asking the same question I asked my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie because he repeated exactly what the government has been saying all day long, that the new process is perfect, that everything is just fine, and that it applies to everyone. It applies not only to candidates to the Social Security Tribunal, boards of directors of crown corporations, and parole boards, but also to officers of Parliament, as though this process were perfect for every one of these instances.

Does my colleague not think that there should be a higher standard and a different process involving Parliament for officers of Parliament? These officers serve Parliament above all. Does my colleague not think that there should be two different standards?

There are dozens of traditional Governor in Council appointments made daily. I do not think that is an exaggeration. However, appointing an officer of Parliament is a rare occurrence and merits a different standard, in my view. Does my colleague agree?

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

So far, in today’s debate, I have found it unfortunate that the government members, including the last member who spoke and asked a question, seem to be conflating all appointments made by the government of Canada, by the Governor in Council. They are putting them all in the same basket with their new appointment process. All Governor in Council appointments will follow the same standards, whereas in my opinion, two standards should apply.

Certainly, when we talk about the Parole Board, the Social Security Tribunal, or port authorities like the Montreal Port Authority, a different standard can apply. However, we are talking about officers of Parliament.

Can my colleague distinguish between all these Governor in Council appointments, which relate to various positions with various responsibilities that require various kinds of experience, and officer of Parliament positions? The government should distinguish between these two kinds of positions. Why should officers of Parliament be subject to a different standard from the one that applies to the other Governor in Council appointments?

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his constructive input into this discussion. I am wondering whether he agrees that there is a problem with the new appointment process. Even though the process is new and the government has nothing but good things to say about it, there were problems with the most recent appointment.

Does my colleague agree with the government that the situation is perfectly satisfactory, that everything is fine, and that there is no problem with the appointment process? Does he believe that the appointment in question should have taken place and that there is no room for improvement?

I would like him to comment on the government's response, which seems to completely ignore the problem and the risk of more problems down the road.

[Finance, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the buffet is open for Canada's big banks.

Since taking office, the Minister of Finance has met with lobbyists working on behalf of Canada's big banks twice as much as his Conservative predecessor. I am sorry, but I doubt that those meetings were really about discussing the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Who is actually running the Department of Finance? Is it Bay Street, the Liberals' friends who are part of the wealthiest 1%, or the minister, who happens to be from Bay Street and among that 1%?

[Excise Tax Act, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to my colleague’s bill, Bill C-342. He is certainly well-intentioned, as he demonstrated in his speech. However, when we take a closer look at the bill’s technical details and its application across the country, not just in Alberta and British Columbia, the provinces he always mentions, there are a number of problems with it. As a parliamentarian, it troubles me to be asked to support such a bill.

I will first discuss the problems with this bill, which are why I am personally opposed to it. The fight against climate change is certainly my first priority, as a certain Liberal minister likes to say, and I hope it is also a priority for the Liberal government and all parties in the House. This issue affects my generation and future generations, so we need to take it very seriously. I am therefore happy to talk about it.

This issue relates to the bill, since it deals with carbon pricing and the polluter pays principle. There must be a price put on consuming polluting products and activities, since pollution comes with a cost. There needs to be a cost to the environmental footprint of using or buying goods and services that pollute more, so that governments can offset our pollution by investing in a greener and more environmentally friendly economy.

I wanted to demonstrate just how important this issue is to me and my party, the NDP. I am sure that I speak for my colleagues when I say that the fight against climate change is very important.

Let us talk a little more about the details of the bill now. Although it is short, consisting of only one paragraph, when we look more closely at it we see that it could be difficult to apply. Each province may decide to put a price on carbon in its own way. For example, Quebec and Ontario have created a common carbon exchange. That is one way of putting a price on carbon and pollution. On the other hand, my colleague has often spoken about Alberta and British Columbia, which have chosen another way of pricing carbon and pollution.

Under the plan announced by the federal government, by 2018 all provinces must have a method of pricing carbon and pollution. Since each province is free to choose how to do that, this bill, which proposes an exemption from the 5% goods and services tax, will have the effect of deducting the carbon tax from the GST. However, if we consider how this bill would be applied in each province, we quickly realize that it would not apply where there is a carbon exchange or some other carbon pricing or carbon levy system. We therefore cannot be sure that the member’s good intentions would materialize in those provinces.

My colleague often refers to electricity or energy bills to support his arguments and his bill. In fact, however, it would apply to much more than energy bills, if we take the example of Alberta and British Columbia. The GST is paid on a range of goods and services, not just energy. It is important to make the distinction.

My colleague said just now that applying the bill could be complicated. The example he gives regarding energy would be relatively complex. However, in other situations and for other kinds of products, it would be a complex matter to determine what portion the carbon price represented, and then exempt only that portion of the product from the 5% GST. The increased complexity involved in applying the Excise Act could cause a number of problems to its implementation in a province where someone decides to make a trade on a carbon exchange and where pollution rights may be purchased.

For example, a company may buy pollution rights and trade them. This is a cap-and-trade system. At that point, it becomes even more difficult to exempt that carbon price, when it is applied in a carbon exchange where businesses have something a little more intangible, namely a right to pollute.

However, that will not necessarily appear on consumers’ bills. Consumers may be involved in the production of a good, since we might say that part of the production is connected with pollution, and thus also connected with carbon. However, it becomes complex to administer and to truly separate out the price connected with carbon in the price of a product, and then try to exempt it from the GST.

With respect to the simplicity of our tax system, I do not think the measure makes it a lot simpler, because it is quite complicated itself.

There is also the entire question of the polluter pays principle. I am not opposed to that principle. The Conservatives want to talk about the GST on the price of carbon, but I think behind that is an effort to defeat the carbon pricing plan.

In fact, we often hear the Conservatives flatly opposing everything associated with the polluter pays principle. That is unfortunate, but it is probably what is hidden behind the intentions of the member who is proposing this measure.

When the member talks about fairness, I would like to tell him about an interesting situation that parliamentarians could consider as the debate continues, namely a way to achieve the objective.

When a carbon tax was introduced in Alberta, they also introduced a rebate system to reimburse the consumers hardest hit by it. Thanks to the NDP government of Alberta, the people with the lowest incomes have been able to obtain refunds. They receive cheques based on a rebate system connected with the carbon tax, and this makes it possible to achieve one of the objectives mentioned by my colleague. What my colleague said was that people with the lowest incomes will be the ones hardest hit by this. In Alberta, they have managed to find a good solution. I encourage my colleagues to consider that measure.

In our tax system, we already have a way of giving a rebate on the GST, and people are thus able to get reimbursed for a certain amount connected with that tax. This would be an opportunity for the federal government to examine that option in more depth, as it prepares to put a price on carbon.

We may differ on the definitions, but a price on carbon covers all forms of pricing. We could therefore consider this option for compensating low-income people, as Alberta has done. We could also give them a refund on the GST, an option that may be more generous for low-income Canadians. This would be a way of finding a compromise so that our tax system remained as simple as possible, even though it is already very complex, and at the same time achieve my colleague’s objectives, that is, not to unduly affect low-income people.

I will be very happy to hear my other colleagues' comments on this bill, and I hope to hear opinions from all sides.

[Excise Tax Act, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his bill currently before the House. I do not doubt his intentions, but I am particularly concerned about the inequity this may cause among consumers in Canada's various regions.

Whenever my colleague has spoken, he has talked mainly about Alberta and British Columbia. I understand why he has considered only those two provinces, since this bill will not apply in those provinces that have carbon exchanges. That is why I am concerned about consumer fairness.

What does the member think about the fact that consumers in Quebec will not be treated the same way as consumers in British Columbia under this proposal? Can he address the question with a view to the fact that carbon pricing systems may vary from one province to another?

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I will be brief. I would like his opinion on the Liberals’ double-talk. On one hand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs delivered a wonderful speech saying that Canada is re-engaging on the world stage, in multinational forums such as the United Nations and so forth. On the other hand, a few days later, we hear that the forum on nuclear disarmament is not important and that Canada will not get involved in negotiations.

Could my colleague try to reconcile these two views, that of re-engagement announced by the minister and of disengagement from negotiations?

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is hard for me to explain what the Liberals are saying today. In this case, they have simply decided to drop the ball. However, the Liberal Party should have been a leader in these discussions.

It must also be remembered that the members of the Liberal Party themselves supported the same type of request that we are making today, to engage anew in negotiations. It is really too bad to see the government MPs decide to reject their members, their volunteers, and the people who help them during election campaigns. Those people adopted a resolution at the 2016 Liberal Party convention. Today, the Liberal MPs decided to turn their backs on their members and their opinions. I find that totally unacceptable.

I am very surprised to see the Liberal Party reject all of their members in that way, members who had supported a motion similar to ours. Some will be very disappointed, particularly those who sponsored such a resolution at the Liberal convention.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to hear once again what I have just denounced in my speech. The government uses the same arguments as the Conservatives on the issue of climate change. They say that, if the essential players are not there, it serves no purpose. If the United States and China are not part of the agreement, it will achieve nothing.

Well something was finally achieved, because people had the courage to do it and to go all the way in the case of agreements such as Kyoto and Paris. It is also because leaders, like Canada, played an important role.

In this case, Canada could again become a leader on the nuclear weapons file, tackling another important problem for humanity. We currently see that the Liberal government has decided to throw in the towel and leave it to others. Once again, they reiterate what the Conservatives said: leave it to others, it does not concern us, and we wash our hands of it.