Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we learned more news about the KPMG affair. Now it appears that the Canada Revenue Agency is involved in a cover-up. Indeed, we have learned that some correspondence between KPMG and the CRA has completely disappeared. Poof, like magic, all the KPMG files are gone. Come on. This is disgusting and utterly indefensible.

Instead of rehashing the same old talking points, will the minister tell us what happened to that correspondence? If she cannot find the right cue card, then will the Minister of Justice tell us what happened to the incriminating correspondence?

[Labelling of Food, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the Prime Minister, who said, ”I am hearing consumers say loud and clear that they want to know more about what they are putting in their bodies.... We are working with them.” That is exactly what he said on Radio-Canada when he was asked what he thought of the fact that 80% of the population supports mandatory GMO labelling, not to mention that the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party put forward a resolution about this during its 2016 convention. This evening, we will be voting on whether to honour the desire for transparency expressed repeatedly by the Prime Minister, his party, and the majority of Canadians.

Will the Prime Minister walk the talk and support my bill this evening?

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the close ties between BlackRock, the government, the infrastructure bank, and its profits were not enough. Now KPMG wants to join the closed circles of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister himself. We also have the revolving door between the Canada Revenue Agency and KPMG and the many public contracts awarded to KPMG. The Minister of National Revenue says that the trap is set for tax cheats.

How does she explain the growing ties between the Liberal government and the KPMG accounting firm? When she says that the trap is set, does she mean that the door is wide open for the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the close ties between BlackRock, the government, the infrastructure bank, and its profits were not enough. Now KPMG wants to join the closed circles of the Liberal Party and the—

[Labelling of Food, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am the sponsor of a very important private member's bill that deserves the attention of all my colleagues.

I am sponsoring a bill that responds to an oft-repeated request by a vast majority of Canadians. Rarely do issues achieve such consensus among our constituents. I am talking about mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.

In recent public opinion surveys, 80% of Canadians said they wanted to know if their food contained GMOs. There is no reason to refuse them this information. That is why I have a bill to do just that, and it is up for a vote tomorrow evening.

If the House truly represents Canadians, it should easily pass second reading. If my bill is defeated, then it will be clear that a majority of MPs put corporate interests before 80% of concerned citizens. This would be a failure of our democracy.

I ask all members of the House to put the interests of their constituents ahead of those of Monsanto. Canadians have a right to know.

Canadians have the right to know. I would like my colleagues to support my bill.

[Food and Drugs Act, May 10th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all the speakers who took the time to come to the House to express their points of view. Although I do not agree with everything that was said, I would nevertheless like to thank them for taking the time to speak.

First of all, I would like to respond to my colleagues who imputed motives to me that I do not have. They seemed to insinuate that I want to ban GMOs or to find fault with the GMO industry, when that is not at all my intention. My only intention is to respond to consumers who have repeatedly expressed their desire to know more about what they eat.

The Prime Minister himself, in a television appearance in 2016, approved of this desire to know more about what we eat. That is all I want to do. I am very surprised to hear some of my colleagues imputing other motives to me and saying that this is an anti-GMO campaign. That is patently false.

What surprised me the most in today's debate is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said. I do not want to quote him incorrectly, but he basically said that giving consumers more information would result in misinformation. That is ridiculous. That suggests that he thinks Canadians are too stupid to figure things out and will be misled by labels with too much information. Come on. It does not make any sense to say that Canadians will have too much information and that it will not be useful to them. He is not giving Canadians very much credit for their intelligence. I wanted to respond to that comment by the parliamentary secretary.

On another note, I want to thank all those who have helped to advance this cause over the past few decades and those who have continued that work in recent weeks. It has been a pleasure to work with them to advance this cause and to try get Canadians the information they deserve.

If the House of Commons really is the House of the common people or, in other words, if it truly represents the people of Canada, and it does not vote in favour of Bill C-291, at least at second reading, there is going to be a major problem, because 80% of the population has asked for this information many times.

If this House truly represents Canadians, it must be consistent and it must take action to give Canadians what they have been calling for in recent years. If parliamentarians do not acknowledge these statistics and at least send this bill to committee for further study, then our democracy has failed.

That being said, I am open to amendments and further study in committee. Today we talked about the definition of genetically modified foods. That will remain in the hands of the government, who will consult industry stakeholders through a regulatory process. That will not happen overnight. This process will run its course like the others. Then we will have the opportunity to discuss the definition and try to align our standards with those of our economic and trading partners.

If 64 other nations label GMOs, there is no reason for Canada not to as well. If this is being done by our main economic partners, including Europe, with whom we have signed an agreement, then we should be doing this too, and then adjusting and harmonizing our regulations. This is critical to our trade agreements.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill, if only to refer it to committee in order to study it more thoroughly.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask another question, because I do not think I heard what my colleague was saying about the creation of the infrastructure bank, which is an important part of this bill.

Speaking of dividing up the bill, this is exactly the kind of measure that could be separated, so that parliamentarians could vote on that in one way and on other measures in a different way. The very principle of splitting a bill is about allowing parliamentarians to vote on each measure rather than having to vote on all of them as a whole.

What does my friend think of the infrastructure bank and the potential risks of privatizing our infrastructure? According to the bill, the mission of the infrastructure bank would be to fund projects that generate revenue. This means more user fees.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about that part of the bill, regarding the creation of the infrastructure bank. What are her thoughts on that?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to touch on something she mentioned at the start of her speech about the Liberals' twisted logic regarding omnibus bills.

When we ask the Liberals if they think this is an omnibus bill, they tell us not to worry because they have a solution. They say they will give the Speaker of the House the power to split omnibus bills into several separate bills.

The thing is, the Liberals are in government and could have done exactly that. They do not need the Speaker to split this bill into several bills. They are the ones who drafted it. If they do not want omnibus bills, why did they not simply choose not to make one? They are the ones who drafted it.

Would the member please comment on the Liberals' totally twisted logic when they say they do not want any more omnibus bills but just introduced one anyway?

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, at the Canada Revenue Agency, there are fine statements of intent and then there is reality. With the Minister of National Revenue, there is talk and there is action.

The minister claims that the fight against tax avoidance is a priority, but a CBC investigation has shown that the number of wealthy taxpayers who have managed not to pay any taxes has doubled since 2011.

The minister says that the net is tightening around tax cheats. Give me a break. It is wide open, and the system benefits the wealthy, who can afford to hire tax avoidance experts.

Does the minister intend to finally put an end to this two-tier system where the wealthy can afford to avoid paying taxes? When will we begin to see some movement on this?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for my colleague, people have more than two options at the polls. The fact is that they added $150 billion to the national debt during their time in power, and it was not the end of the world.

Anyway, my question is about the government's choices. By passing an NDP motion, the Liberals agreed to put limits on stock options for CEOs, but that is nowhere in the budget. It could have kept that promise in Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill. It could have followed through on the commitment it made when it passed our motion on March 8. Unfortunately, there was no mention of it in the budget tabled on March 22. Now Bill C-44 makes no mention of that commitment either.

What the Liberals did do was get rid of the public transit tax credit. People in our ridings use that tax credit. People come to see me, and they tell me that they use it. Sometimes it is the only tax credit they can use because they are not in a position to make charitable or political donations. They do not have access to other tax credits; this is one of the few they can use. Now the government is taking their tax credit away. It just so happens to be leaving generous tax credits for CEOs in place.

What does the member think of the Liberal government's policy choices?