Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant comments.

Does he also think that greater efforts must be made to encourage women and ensure that they are welcome in industries that traditionally employ more men? Conversely, men could also be encouraged to go into occupations that typically employ more women at this time.

What does he think of such efforts and of the federal government's role in efforts to encourage more gender-diverse work environments?

[Privilege, April 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

I am very pleased to hear him speak today and see him be so reasonable to the minority in the House because that was not always the case when he was across the way.

I would like him to comment on why the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is the ideal place to get to the bottom of things, as we saw not so long ago when a similar thing happened to our former colleague Yvon Godin, who was prevented from getting to the Hill just before a vote. The question was thoroughly reviewed at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee heard witnesses and made its findings.

Can my colleague reiterate why the ideal place to address this type of issue is the committee and not the House, as part of a debate like the one we are currently having with all members?

[Canada Revenue Agency, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am extremely disappointed with the answer that I received this evening.

The government is just looking into what is being done in other countries with regard to the time frame for processing income tax objections when the minister promised that the job would be done by early 2017. It is very surprising to hear my colleague say today that she intends to resolve low-complexity objections in 180 days or less, while talking about efficiency and effectiveness.

I do not think that the average taxpayer who sends something in to the Canada Revenue Agency would agree that waiting 180 days to get an answer is acceptable, effective, or efficient. What is more, the government is admitting that it believes that this time frame is acceptable. In my opinion, it is not acceptable for taxpayers to have to wait 180 days before getting an answer from the Canada Revenue Agency.

I would like my colleague to provide a detailed explanation of what actions have been taken to date since the minister promised to get the job done and improve the time frame for the processing of income tax objections. What has been accomplished to date? I do not want her to tell me about what is in the works or being planned for the coming months. The minister promised to get the job done. When will the job actually be done?

[Canada Revenue Agency, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of National Revenue about the Auditor General of Canada's report, which shed some light on some troubling aspects of management within the Canada Revenue Agency. This information is extremely troubling and I would like to go over some of the figures with the parliamentary secretary to see whether they are still accurate.

At the time, there were at the CRA 171,000 files related to objections to notices of assessment. Average taxpayers submit their income tax returns. It is timely that we are discussing this right now, because this is the time of year that we submit our tax returns to the CRA. The agency assesses the information and data in the return as it is submitted, and then it sometimes sends a notice of assessment to indicate that the return contained some errors and the taxpayer owes the CRA more money than originally thought.

In this situation, the taxpayer has the right to object to the Canada Revenue Agency's position and to state that the report was completely reliable, that it included all the necessary information, and that the information was correct. If the CRA maintains the opposite, the taxpayer can initiate a process that can be very lengthy, and that is what the Office of the Auditor General revealed. In fact, cases of objections can sometimes go on for more than two years before the CRA responds. The taxpayer submits his or her tax return, the CRA responds that it is not quite accurate and that the taxpayer owes one amount instead of another. At that point, the taxpayer can file an objection. It can take the CRA up to two years in some cases to provide more specific information about an existing dispute.

The Auditor General, who raised this issue a few years ago, had to raise it again in 2016 because there were still major problems with Canada Revenue Agency delays in responding to notices of objection. Processing takes four times longer than in other countries similar to Canada. It takes four times longer for people to get responses to their objections than in other countries. In Canada, it can take as long as two and a half years to get a response.

When I raised this matter, the Minister told me that “an action plan to reduce processing times for objections is already being drawn up.” She even added, “It will be completed in early 2017.” It is now April 4, 2017, so there is no better time to ask the question. Considering that it is already April, what is the status of the action plan that the Minister of National Revenue promised to complete in early 2017?

I would like more information about this action plan that we are all, including the Auditor General, waiting for. The Auditor General made eight recommendations, and the minister said that she supported and welcomed them all. Where is the action plan that was to be delivered in early 2017? It is now April 2017.

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that my colleague from Winnipeg North was listening to my colleague's speech. I was in fact going to thank my colleague for citing several independent sources on the budget. My colleague from Winnipeg North certainly missed a big part of his speech.

My question has to do with the government's penchant for announcing large sums spread out over several years, quite often beyond an election cycle. In the most recent budget, that of 2017, we even see some spending that has been pushed to 2027-28, or 10 years from now, in the middle of a third Liberal government term, should it be re-elected until then.

Could my colleague speak to the increasing use of this practice of announcing major investments over ridiculously long periods of time? These large figures that are bandied about tend to mislead the public. The public gets the impression that the government is spending a lot of money, when in fact it is not. It is promising money that will not be invested until after the election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his work on this issue.

I cannot understand why we would refuse to disclose this information, when this is being done in 64 other countries. Canadians are not second-class consumers. Canadian consumers have the right to this information as much as the consumers in these 64 other countries.

I do not understand why the Liberals and my other colleagues from all parties would reject such an initiative, which simply seeks to ensure that Canadians are on equal footing with consumers in these 64 other countries, where this information is available when they go shopping. I hope this information will finally be made available to Canadians.

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

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

This is an opportunity to talk about something I did not have time to get to in my speech and that is the economic argument for my Bill C-291.

There has indeed been some progress in the United States. Today, some form of labelling is mandatory across the country. Some say the system is not perfect, but it is better than nothing.

We are in the process of signing a number of economic agreements with other countries, including the European Union. There is an economic reason for wanting to align our regulations with those of the 64 countries who already have mandatory labelling. Canada has some catching up to do.

From a trade perspective, the argument in favour of mandatory labelling is that it will allow us to align our regulations not only with our main economic partner, the United States, but also with our other economic partners around the world who have also made labelling mandatory, including the European Union with which we just signed a trade agreement. There is a very strong economic argument for Bill C-291.

I urge my colleagues to consider this important aspect of my bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He asked a valid question about health and the presence of allergens in food products, which is what led to labelling.

As he said in his speech, Health Canada uses industry research to decide whether to approve novel foods, as they are known in Health Canada jargon. Unfortunately, the big problem is that people do not trust the approval process. As my colleague pointed out, Health Canada relies exclusively on research paid for and carried out by industries that stand to gain from their products being approved. That is why the public does not have faith in the approval system.

My bill will restore some of that lost faith because people will have access to more information about the foods they are consuming. The information will at least be on the labels, which is a step in the right direction toward restoring public trust in the approval of novel foods in Canada.

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

moved that Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour to rise today in the House to kick off the debate on my initiative, Bill C-291. Members who are not ministers seldom have the opportunity to debate and eventually pass bills to amend existing laws or to create brand new ones.

Mine is a very simple bill, which has already been debated in the House a few times in the past. Almost 10 years have passed since this issue was raised in the House, but I believe it is the right time to do so.

My bill concerns the mandatory labelling of genetically modified food. The purpose of the bill is simple: to obtain more transparent information on the labels of food that is consumed in Canada because Canadians have the right to know in detail what they consume. That is why I introduced Bill C-291, which we are debating today.

Let me set the stage by first quoting the Prime Minister of Canada. As recently as December 15, 2016, in response to a question about mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods, he said on Radio-Canada, “This is about protecting consumers. I am hearing consumers say loud and clear that they want to know more about what they are putting in their bodies. This is a good thing. We are working with them.”

This works out quite well; I am going to give him the opportunity to work on it, since he will soon have a chance to vote on my bill. I hope he will vote to support it, since he committed to work on this issue. This is the perfect opportunity for him, for all government members, and for the opposition members, to walk the talk.

My motivations and reasons for introducing this bill can be summed up rather quickly. Naturally, I was very familiar with this issue before being elected to the House, but it was shortly after I was elected in 2011 that I began meeting regularly with André Nault, an active member of the group Amis de la terre de l'Estrie. He worked on this issue for nearly his whole life. Sadly, he has passed away, but I still wanted to recognize all the work he did and the fact that he came to see me on a number of occasions to talk about this issue, Canadians' right to be informed. Several times he drew my attention to the need for the House to pass legislation like this bill. I want to commend his work and the work done by Amis de la terre de l'Estrie. Even though he is gone, that group is continuing his work to demand not only that genetically modified foods be labelled, but that Canadians have access to healthy, high-quality food.

As I said earlier, this is a unique opportunity, so I thought long and hard about the bill to put forward. I spent a lot of time thinking about it, and I want to give my wife, Joanie, some credit for her part in the process. We talked about the issue, and she encouraged me to introduce this bill. This is important to her too.

I want to emphasize that my main goal in introducing this bill is to make sure Canadians get the information they have asked for over and over. Like the Prime Minister, they want to know more.

That is why I am hoping for Liberal support. December 15 was not the first time the Prime Minister said he was open to the idea and was going to work on it. The Liberals have talked about this issue a lot in the past. In 2002, Mr. Caccia, the member for Davenport, introduced a similar bill. He was a Liberal government minister.

More recently, the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada passed a resolution at its convention. It was even one of the policy resolutions on the agenda at the Liberal Party of Canada's most recent convention in 2016. Unfortunately, it was not voted on.

I would have liked to see the results to know what Liberal Party members think. It is certainly an issue that has repeatedly come back to the table and has the support of Liberal Party members because they talked about it at their party's convention. I hope to have their support here.

I am also following in the footsteps of some remarkable MPs who have worked on this file. There was Alex Atamanenko, NDP member who represented the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior. He introduced a bill on this more than once. There was Judy Wasylycia-Leis, who represented the riding of Winnipeg North and also introduced bills as part of her work on this file. And let us not forget Paul Dewar, then hon. member for Ottawa Centre, who also worked on this issue and introduced bills. They were remarkable NDP MPs whose work we applaud and remember today.

As I was saying, the last time we addressed this issue and voted on it was in 2008, when we debated a Bloc Québécois bill introduced by Gilles Perron, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Today, I am speaking to an issue that has been debated a few times in the House and that has been presented by different Canadian political parties.

I know my Conservative and Liberal colleagues, and I know what they will say. I therefore want to reassure them today that this is not an anti-GMO bill or an anti-GMO campaign. Far from it. It is simply a campaign to ensure transparency and provide people with more information. I want to be sure that members have clearly understood me: this is not a campaign against genetically modified foods. This bill will not prohibit the production of GMOs in Canada. This bill will not prevent technological research to improve our agricultural practices.

There is no way for this bill to be viewed as anti-GMO. It is simply a response to opinion polls that have been conducted in the past twenty years. These polls repeatedly and consistently showed that between 80% and 90% of Canadians support this initiative. Over time, the polls have consistently confirmed this support, including the most recent Health Canada survey, which also reported majority support for the labelling of GMO food.

My bill is very simple and includes only three provisions. The first stipulates that no person shall sell any food that is genetically modified unless it is labelled as such. Since I recognize the government's regulatory authority over food labelling, the second provision of the bill grants additional regulatory powers to define what constitutes a genetically modified food. The bill recognizes Health Canada's scientific expertise in this area, and so it is up to that department to define what constitutes a genetically modified food and determine when labelling is required. The bill also gives the government the regulatory authority to define the form and manner of labelling, where the label will be placed, and the size and wording of the label.

What is more, I am allowing the government to determine when the bill will take effect. If my bill is passed, the government can decide, after consulting the industry and hearing from all the stakeholders, when it would be best for Bill C-291 to take effect.

It is the simplest bill we have debated in the House. It has only three provisions and recognizes the government's current regulatory powers over food labelling. I therefore hope that the government will vote in favour of this bill, since 80% of Canadians support it.

I will be very disappointed if less than 80% of MPs support this initiative. That would be a blow to our democracy. I therefore encourage all of my colleagues to support Bill C-291.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate.

Bill C-22 is meant to be a direct response to Bill C-51. In fact, when we were debating Bill C-51, my Liberal colleagues often brought up this issue. They said that we needed to ensure some kind of parliamentary oversight of Canada's intelligence organizations. However, they went ahead and supported Bill C-51 anyway, even though the Conservative bill included no such measures.

Why did the Liberals support that bill in the first place, and why did they trust the Conservatives or the next government to fix the part of the legislation that deals with parliamentary oversight?