Pierre-Luc Dusseault

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the matter of taxes. As members know, people in the spirits and microdistillery industry have been calling for lower excise duties on 100% Canadian products for years, but the government has refused. Not only has the government refused, but it also told them today that there would be an immediate increase in excise duties. In fact, excise duties will continue to increase indefinitely based on the consumer price index.

Could my colleague talk about this Liberal proposal, which, instead of helping our microdistilleries that produce fine Canadian products, will impose more taxes on them, with no end in sight to the increase in excise duties?

[Privilege, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding why the Liberals have been asking us all day why we do not just send this to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as quickly as possible. Now, it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who is asking us that question. Earlier, it was the member for Winnipeg North. We are in this situation because the Liberals refused to do just that when this issue was raised in the House the first time. The question of privilege was simply swept under the rug. The Liberals killed it. They did not want to hear about it. At that time, some Liberal members even gave speeches about why the matter did not need to be sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That is why they killed the debate. I am therefore wondering why they are asking us this question today. We are in this situation because they refused to send this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when it was first raised.

I do not understand the Liberals' definition of filibustering. Members are in the House to debate issues. Why should members who want to speak be prevented from doing so? That is not what I would call filibustering. Members rise on behalf of their constituents and speak in the House. Whether there are 39 or 49 members, they are rising because they want to speak and share their opinions on this issue.

Does the member agree with the definition of filibustering used by the Liberals, who believe that if many members want to speak about an issue, this automatically constitutes filibustering and we are trying to delay the whole process?

[Privilege, May 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with my colleague's speech.

Does he know what drove the Liberals' 180 on this issue? They first time the question of privilege came up, they totally shut down debate instead of taking the stance that a committee should look at the issue, which is what they are saying now. After a few hours, they decided that was enough, they did not want to hear another word about it, and they would not send it to committee. Now they are telling us this issue has to go to committee as quickly as possible and the debate has to end.

Can the member tell me why the Liberals reversed their stance on referring this issue to committee? The first time we talked about this, they said it was out of the question and shut down debate. Now they are saying we need to expedite things and send the question to committee immediately.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's frustration with respect to the member for Winnipeg North.

When he was sitting over here, not too far from my seat, he often stood up and criticized the Conservative government. As usual, he would shout his dissatisfaction at the government any time it used time allocation.

The question I have for my colleague has to do with the Liberals' hypocrisy. They said that there was no consensus on electoral reform, so they broke a promise on something they had firmly committed to. However, when it comes to rules and procedure, they do not need a consensus; they absolutely have to keep their promise and do not ask any questions.

Why do the Liberals have a double standard when it comes to their promised reforms to the electoral system and reforms to the rules of the House? They have completely different criteria for adopting each set of reforms.

[May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention and his fine words about my bill, which will soon be studied and put to a vote.

I was quite surprised to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North say that he was in favour of the amendment to the amendment, after voting for the motion to adjourn the debate on it.

What does my colleague think of what happened to the first motion, which sought to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and was rejected by the government before we went back to our constituencies? The Speaker felt that it was inappropriate for the government to completely shut down the debate and intervened to have the debate resumed in the House.

What does the hon. member think of the debate on the question of privilege being adjourned?

[Privilege, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is extremely relevant, but he forgot to mention that, in order to be able to examine the specific question of privilege raised by our colleagues, the committee must be instructed by the House to do so.

The committees are free to examine any issue they want. In this case, the committee can examine the issue of access to the parliamentary precinct in general, but to examine the specific question of privilege raised by my two colleagues with regard to what happened to them and set the record straight, the committee must be instructed by the House of Commons to do so. It cannot undertake a study of its own volition when it comes to a question of privilege.

[Privilege, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comment and her question.

I do not know what goes on in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who seems to be the one behind all this procedure. He is often involved in these matters.

I do not understand why he would not think it appropriate to give the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs the mandate to examine the question of privilege raised by our two colleagues, who felt their privilege had been breached. I see no explanation for that. I understand that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is busy at the moment. It has a rather full agenda, to say the least.

That said, as the Speaker said earlier in his ruling, this matter takes precedence over everything else. That is why we are discussing it here today. This matter is so important to the House that it is at the top of the agenda.

It would go without saying that it is same thing at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; although it has a full agenda, this issue would be considered first. It is of capital and fundamental importance to the House and must be dealt with as soon as possible. If we want to find lasting solutions to the problem of obstruction and access to the House, then we must discuss this at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as soon as possible. I do not understand how the government could refuse that.

Instead of taking up the House's time to deal with this issue, why does the government not refer the matter to committee, which could do its study at its own pace and then report back to the House with recommendations and its observations on the situation? I do not understand the government. I hope that the Liberals will provide some explanation if they truly intend to not support this motion to refer the matter to committee.

[Privilege, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today. I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for sharing his valuable time with me so that I may have a turn at speaking to the issue before us today, which is to refer the question of privilege to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This question of privilege was raised by two of our colleagues who, on the day that the budget was tabled, March 22, were held up when they were heading to a vote in the House. They raised this question of privilege, which was accepted by the Speaker.

Now, we must come back to this question after briefly getting off topic. I will explain why we stopped talking about it and why we are coming back to it now. For those watching at home, I will give a brief overview of the question of privilege. I find this subject to be quite interesting and quite important, especially as a parliamentarian. However, it is important for people at home to understand the privileges of the House and why it is important for us to debate them today and for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to be involved in this matter later in the course of the debate.

Questions of privilege are extremely important. I can give some examples of the House's privileges. MPs have privileges as elected members of the House, but the House as a whole has privileges too. MPs' rights and immunities include freedom of speech. My colleague talked about this earlier. We also have freedom from arrest in civil action, exemption from jury duty, and exemption from attendance as a witness in court. One of the most important privileges, especially in the context of today's debate, is freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation, and molestation.

The matter before us today specifically concerns protection from obstruction. Nobody can obstruct an MP who is attempting to attend the House to represent his or her constituents. That is exactly what happened to our two colleagues who raised this question of privilege. When I say that is exactly what happened, that is not my personal opinion. It is the opinion of the Speaker of the House. In preparing his ruling, he spoke to several individuals involved in the incidents. After analyzing the facts and the situation, and probably after looking at surveillance camera footage, he found that, on the basis of the evidence before him, there was a prima facie breach of the parliamentary privilege not to be obstructed when attempting to attend the House.

When the Speaker rules that, first of all, there has been a breach of privilege, he is then ready to hear a motion for the House to be seized of the question. This has happened many times in the history of this place, without naming any specific examples. On several occasions, we have been seized with questions of privilege, and the Speaker has sometimes ruled that a breach of privilege did in fact occur. In other instances there was not enough evidence to rule that a breach of privilege occurred. Ultimately, however, it is up to the House to vote on the matter, but we were deprived of that because of the government's actions, and that is why we are all here today.

When my colleagues raised the question of privilege, the appropriate motion was moved so that the matter could be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which would have been seized with the matter. The debate began last week, I think. Arguments on both sides were heard. The committee even heard from some government members who disagreed. They felt that a breach of privilege did not necessarily occur. Naturally, the members on this side believed that a breach did occur and that the matter needed to be referred to the committee.

What happened during that debate is unprecedented in the history of this place. The government moved a motion to proceed to orders of the day, and that motion, moved by my colleague from Brossard—Saint-Lambert, was adopted. She did not seem to realize the consequences it would have. Indeed, it set a precedent in the House.

While the House was seized with a question of privilege, the government decided to cut the debate short and proceed to orders of the day. That meant that the debate was over, and the House never voted on the question of privilege to refer it to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Even the Conservatives never went this far, and that is something that we cannot often say. I was here in the House from 2011 to 2015, and I saw many surprising things from the Conservative government. However, this time the Liberals went even further. At least the Conservatives had the decency to simply vote against motions to refer matters to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. When questions of privilege were raised, we debated them and voted on them.

Even though it is difficult for us, we sometimes have to accept that a certain party holds more than half the seats. We therefore have to accept the democratic decisions of the House, even though they may not always be the decisions we want. At least the matter was brought before the House and voted on. That is the least we should be able to expect.

Under the Conservatives, we would vote. The motion would not be adopted and the matter would not be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. At least we could say that the House had expressed its opinion on the matter. A government does not automatically win all the votes just because it holds a majority. There are many members of the House who are independent enough to vote according to their conscience, particularly when it comes to questions of privilege.

We could at least have voted on it. However, in an unprecedented move, the government decided to quite simply interrupt the debate. That is why we are still talking about it today. The Speaker ruled that the interruption of the debate was completely inappropriate, and that this question must return to the House so that we may continue debating it. The matter was to be revived, as I recall it was put, because we had not really finished discussing it.

Thus, I applaud the ruling by the Speaker, who agreed to again recognize that there was a prima facie case of privilege and who again allowed a member to move a motion to refer to committee the same question of privilege raised last week concerning members who were prevented from coming to vote in the House. It goes without saying that it is now up to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, a committee of parliamentarians, to study the matter and to hear from witnesses, as it has in other cases.

The case of Yvon Godin was mentioned earlier. He, too, was prevented from voting and, like others, he testified before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee, which is made up of MPs, will look into the matter, hear from witnesses, try to shed light on what happened that day, and make recommendations to correct the situation. It is important to note that this is not the first time that a question of privilege concerning members' access to the House has been brought before this chamber, and I have the feeling that it will not be the last. That is why the government must absolutely support the Conservatives' motion to refer this matter to the committee.

We must identify permanent solutions, and it is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that will be able to do that. I encourage all my colleagues to support this motion.

[Privilege, April 11th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, this is a rather historic moment in the House, given that the Speaker has ruled in favour of the member who raised a question of privilege pertaining to another privilege motion. This is certainly a blow for the government and especially for the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, who moved the motion to proceed to orders of the day.

Earlier, the Speaker gave his ruling on the motion, which was inappropriate in the circumstances. In fact, we were debating a question of privilege and the debate was to end with a vote. This debate was interrupted by the motion moved by my government colleague.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on the Speaker's historic ruling of today on the motion to end debate that was adopted by the government one week ago. The Speaker recognized that the situation was unprecedented.

According to my colleague, what effect will this decision have on future questions of privilege raised in the House?

[Sherbrooke Hussars Regiment, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as we mark the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, I am honoured today to recognize the immense contribution of the reserve force regiment known today as the Sherbrooke Hussars.

Created in 1870 in Melbourne, Quebec, this regiment was deployed for active service in 1914 and participated in many battles, including such battles as the Somme, Arras, Vimy, Ypres, and Passchendaele.

The Sherbrooke Hussars regiment made a significant contribution to Canada during the Second World War, particularly during the Normandy invasion, as well as in operations in Hong Kong. That is not to mention the regiment's participation in recent peacekeeping missions.

A regimental ball is planned for May 6 to wrap up the festivities commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Sherbrooke Hussars, and I am sure that everyone from Sherbrooke will join me in acknowledging this important anniversary and once again thanking, for their sacrifices, the many reservists who have helped make the regiment a success over the years.

Let us take advantage of this celebration to remind the government how important it is to protect and restore the William Street armoury, which today is home to these reservists.