Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Hull—Aylmer for his speech.

I know that he is a reasonable MP. I must say I am a little disappointed that he is unable to recognize the successes as well as the failures. I recall that we were talking last evening in the House about successes and failures. We were wondering if we would be capable of recognizing them. I thought he might have taken the opportunity to apologize for having said something during the campaign and for a year and a half before, and then changing his mind. I shall therefore give him another opportunity to apologize in a moment.

That being said, I would like to know why the Liberals did not make clear right from the outset the consensus they were seeking. What is their definition of “consensus”, since that is their current excuse?

There are plenty of examples to choose from in other files, the finest being the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Is there a consensus on that? The member would not be able to convince me that there is a consensus on that in the House today. The Liberals, however, are moving ahead all the same. Today they are using the excuse of the consensus. I wonder if the member can define what a consensus is. If his government intends to lead by consensus, it would be good to know the level of consensus it is seeking before moving ahead on its policies.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, even if we do not agree on his argument against proportional representation. However, that is not the essence of today’s discussion.

My colleague is arguing against reform, even though his prime minister mentioned during the campaign that this would be the last election under the current system. Not only did the Prime Minister say that during the campaign, but he continued to repeat it until just recently. My colleague himself was elected on the basis of that platform.

The objective of today’s debate is then not to make speeches in favour of one system or another, but quite simply to ask my colleague to apologize for having betrayed Canadians. For years the Liberals said they were going to reform the voting system, and today they are saying, “No thanks”.

It is a simple matter to apologize. There is no need for big speeches on voting systems. It would suffice to simply take a moment to apologize to Canadians for having betrayed them.

Is my colleague prepared to do that?

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

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

I want to come back to what I was saying earlier about the future of fossil fuels in the world and not just in Canada. I think that my colleague and I have very little in common except that we may be the same age. That being said, does he see positive future prospects for fossil fuels in 60 years, for example? Does he think that the government should continue to make massive investments in these energies or, as many of my colleagues have proposed, should the government turn to energies of the future that will certainly be used around the world 60 years from now? I do not think fossil fuels are the way of the future.

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

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

Unfortunately, the government has put forward a lot of piecemeal solutions today, solutions that focus on individuals receiving certain contributions, and that is fine, but I have not heard the government say anything about long-term solutions.

The problem we are dealing with today is not new. During today's debate, a number of people pointed out that this situation is cyclical, that it came up in the past and will probably come up again in the future. Can my colleague offer any long-term solutions that will result in a stable, sustainable future for Alberta?

I am sure everyone here agrees that fossil fuels are not the energy of the future. I do not see us debating whether fossil fuels will dominate the planet. We are all asking ourselves those questions.

Does my colleague have a long-term solution for Alberta to prevent this history from repeating itself?

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little disappointed by my colleague's response earlier. Instead of proposing constructive solutions, things the Conservatives could have proposed during their 10 years in office, he simply mentioned what he would not have done compared to what the Liberals have done in the past year.

I will try my luck once again with my Conservative colleague; as a member here under Mr. Harper's reign, he watched the situation deteriorate during the last few years of his term. In my view, he did not take any action in response to the obvious threat looming over Alberta. I am wondering if he would have the decency or modesty to accept even partial responsibility for the current situation.

Would he have done anything different, knowing what we know today?

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know his remarks are sincere.

We are taking note of the current employment situation in Alberta, and we certainly do not want something like this to happen again in the future. Oil prices are plummeting, which is causing a major problem in that province.

What would my colleague have done differently over the past 10 years, particularly when his party ran the federal government? What would he have done differently to prevent the current situation from happening? This is not something that started happening this past year. It is the result of the government failing to take action for much longer than that. What would he have done differently to avoid this situation? How can we prevent this sort of thing from happening again?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the carbon tax in part of his speech. I do not know whether he is aware of this, but a large majority of the Canadian population lives in a province where there is some form of carbon pricing. If I recall correctly, nearly 90% of Canadians live in one of those provinces. I would therefore like to ask him a very simple question.

At what point does the member foresee the apocalypse and the collapse of the economy of all the provinces that already have a carbon tax?

The Conservatives always scare people by telling them that a carbon tax would cause the Canadian economy to collapse. At what point, then, does the member foresee that those provinces will collapse and there will be an economic apocalypse?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, in which she mentioned that the government is generating unprecedented deficits, and that she has never seen this in the history of Canada.

Deficits built up steadily under Prime Minister Mulroney, who was leading a Conservative government, not to mention the $150 billion added under Mr. Harper’s government.

My colleague is trying to portray the tax credits for physical or cultural activities, for example, as tax breaks. In fact, she is talking about the tax credit for sports activities, for example, and saying that if it were eliminated, that would amount to a tax increase.

Could the member clarify her party’s view, or her own? To me, eliminating a tax credit does not amount to a tax increase. It is simply taking a way of paying less taxes away from taxpayers. I think she is confusing the two.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I have to say it was much more focused on the subject than what we have heard from most of his colleagues, who were rehashing the Department of Finance talking points. He stuck to the motion that is before us today.

He talked a lot about tax expenditures, a subject we could discuss at great length. Fortunately, the government has undertaken a review of a lot of tax expenditures, about 180 of them, as my colleague said. One of the major problems that makes things sometimes unfair is that most tax credits are non-refundable. That certainly does not improve the fairness of the tax system, since people who do not pay income tax do not have access to those tax credits. In addition, as my colleague said, most people who have the lowest incomes do not have the resources to enrol their children in sports, or cultural, or arts activities, and so they do not benefit from those tax credits in any way.

When the Liberals set about reviewing tax expenditures, are they considering making more tax credits refundable?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I think she gave a very good answer to my Liberal colleague’s question.

In light of what was announced yesterday, how can we rely on a single word that comes out of the mouth of a Liberal minister or a government member, when, from one day to the next, they deny what they say, they renege on promises, and they change their minds without giving anyone any notice?

The government’s word certainly took a heavy hit yesterday, when the Liberals announced that they were not going to keep one of their clearest and most solemn promises of the election campaign: to change the electoral system. I know that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle is also very familiar with the subject of electoral reform.

Does my colleague believe that we can rely on the Liberals’ word when they announce they are going to do something or they are not going to do something?