Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Criminal Records Act, May 30th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry for my colleague. I will try to quickly get through my speech so that he can also add to today's debate.

I am glad to speak on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke to Bill C-93, which is part of the larger issue of cannabis legalization. It is important to ensure that those who have been sentenced for simple possession can erase that from their criminal records. Now that cannabis is legal, I think everyone agrees that we must prevent all injustices committed against those who have criminal records because of this offence.

All of my colleagues have probably talked to constituents who have criminal records. They are well aware of the barriers these Canadians face. Although it is important for those who violate the Criminal Code to face consequences, it goes without saying that, when dealing with a product that was once illegal and has since been legalized, such an injustice should be acknowledged in an effort to remove the barriers these people face every day. I think everyone agrees on the principle of the matter. It is on the way to settle this injustice that we strongly disagree with the government.

Over the years, the Government of Canada has tried a number of times to address similar injustices in different ways. The NDP would have liked to see the government address the injustice related to the simple possession of cannabis by expunging the records of those affected. That is what was done in the case of other historic injustices where the Criminal Code contained unreasonable provisions that no longer made any sense.

Those who still have a criminal record for this offence deserve to have their record expunged, or permanently deleted, so that there is no trace of their conviction and it is as though the crime was never committed. We need to recognize this historic injustice related to an offence that is no longer an offence today. Simple possession of cannabis is now completely acceptable and legal in our society.

Obviously, the NDP's approach is completely different from the one the Liberal government took in Bill C-93. The Liberal government chose to suspend such records, but the word “suspend” means something completely different than the word “expunge” when it comes to the application and effect of this measure. The government decided to suspend the criminal records of those found guilty of simple possession of cannabis, and we do not think that is enough. Obviously, this approach will not work very well and will not do justice to those affected. This shows a lack of ambition on the part of the government.

As my colleague mentioned, the government decided to do the bare minimum. The minister himself said that automatic suspension was too complicated a procedure for him. Imagine how complicated it would be for him and his department to expunge a record.

Simply put, the Liberal government lacks ambition. It should have corrected this injustice well before the final sitting days of this Parliament. It could have included this in a bill or, at the very least, in a parallel process, because one cannot happen without the other. Legalization should have included a pardon and record suspension process, even if the records should ideally be expunged. All of this should have been done when we decided to legalize cannabis, given how important an issue it is.

Clearly, the government failed and it is trying to remedy the situation and do everything it can at the last minute to satisfy the many voters affected by this, who also happen to be our constituents. I have seen some of them in Sherbrooke. Just last month, I heard testimony from someone who was interested in the issue because it affected her personally. She was disappointed by the Liberal government’s approach, which only implements a system for record suspensions, despite a very clear proposition in the form of a bill introduced by our colleague from Victoria. All the government had to do was pass it and everything would have been fine. Instead, it chose to stay the course and do the bare minimum. The government wants to do the bare minimum. Clearly, there is a lack of ambition.

I was reading a quote from a witness who said in committee that it was better than nothing. However, he also said that better than nothing was not a lot to ask from Parliament. We expect Parliament to do the best possible, to do everything in its power to make the situation the best possible, not to do the bare minimum and for it to be better than nothing. That is not what Canadians expect from us and our work. In light of the testimony heard at committee, the government's current approach is very disappointing. Despite all the evidence and witness testimony that it heard, it remains dead set on maintaining its approach and is unwilling to listen to anything or fix the situation. I am truly disappointed to have to say that I am opposing this bill since it is not the solution that should have been considered and brought forward by the Liberal government. The government got it wrong.

People who currently have a criminal record will continue to be marginalized. Even though this is free of charge, people may not have the capacity, the resources or the financial means to see the process through for getting their criminal record suspended. As I was saying before, the government decided that this would not be done automatically. The people involved will have to go through a process, file their application and maybe even submit biometric data to satisfy the many requirements related to getting a pardon or a record suspension. Marginalized people who may not even be aware of these changes are going to be left out. Some people do not read the news every morning and might not know that is available to them. If the government was truly ambitious and serious about marijuana legalization, it would have at least made this automatic, since it is not opting for expungement of criminal records, which was our preference.

I am really disappointed because I expected more. I expected a genuine desire on the government's part to correct this injustice. There is no reason why people who do not apply for a post-legalization suspension after Bill C-93 is adopted—if it is adopted—should continue to be saddled with a criminal record. The crime they committed is no longer a crime. Society accepts it now. This is a gross injustice, an injustice that will persist because the government did not take the right approach.

Some of our constituents, like the one I met back home in Sherbrooke, are still vulnerable. These are people who need a helping hand from the government. They are still outsiders, still marginalized, and they are the ones we should be helping the most.

I felt it was important to add my voice to the debate and explain why I have to vote against this bill today. The government has clearly made a bad decision and is heading in the wrong direction with this. What a huge disappointment for me and for many of my Sherbrooke constituents.

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we learned today that the Minister of National Revenue signed an agreement with KPMG clients to exonerate them of all charges in connection with its tax scheme. This is absolutely appalling and contradicts everything the minister has been saying for years.

This is yet more proof that there are two sets of rules, one for the privileged and another for everyone else. The minister just lost what little credibility she had left when she blamed public servants for this terrible agreement.

All she had to do was reel in the big fish, so why did the Minister of National Revenue cut the line and let it get away without facing any consequences?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns., May 27th, 2019]

With regard to advertising paid for by the government for each fiscal year from April 1, 2016, to the present date: (a) how much did the government spend on advertising; (b) what was the subject of each advertisement and how much was spent on each subject; (c) which department purchased the advertising and what are the detailed expenditures of each department in this regard; (d) for each subject and department mentioned in (b) and (c), how much was spent on each type of advertising, including but not limited to (i) television, specifying the stations, (ii) radio, specifying the stations, (iii) print, i.e. newspapers and magazines, specifying the names of the publications, (iv) the Internet, specifying the names of the websites, (v) billboards, specifying their locations, (vi) bus shelters, specifying their location, (vii) advertising in all other publicly accessible places; (e) for each type of advertising in (d), was it in Canada or abroad; (f) for the answers in (b), (c) and (d), how long did the advertisements run for; (g) for each advertising purchase, who signed the contracts; (h) for each advertisement, who was involved in the production; (i) for each advertisement, was a third party involved in its publication or did a third party coordinate other advertisements based on the government advertisements; and (j) for each advertisement, did the purchase and publication coincide with a specific event, such as a sporting event?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns., May 27th, 2019]

With regard to the Offshore Tax Informant Program, for each fiscal year since 2015-16 to the current date: (a) how many calls have been received; (b) how many files have been opened based on information received from informants; (c) what is the total amount of the awards paid to informants; (d) what is the total amount recovered by the Canada Revenue Agency; (e) how many current investigations are the result of information received through the program; and (f) how much money is involved in the current investigations?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns., May 27th, 2019]

With regard to the statement in Budget 2019 that, “since Budget 2016, the Government has taken many actions to improve the fairness of the tax system”: (a) what is the name of each of these actions; (b) what is the total amount collected by the Canada Revenue Agency, broken down by each of the actions in (a); (c) of the actions in (a), how many actions sought specifically to address aggressive international tax avoidance; and (d) of the actions in (a), how many sought specifically to address international tax evasion?

[Canadian Heritage, May 16th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, Facebook and Google generated total advertising revenues of more than $5 billion last year, yet neither of those two multinationals paid a red cent in taxes to Canada.

The Minister of National Revenue says she wants to focus on the big fish. Hello! They are not called web giants for nothing. While her government sits on its hands, our artists, retailers, media and broadcasters are the ones paying the price for the government's willful blindness and rather subjective enforcement of the law.

When will she end the privileges given to the web giants?

[Petitions, May 15th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present an e-petition today that was signed by 3,514 Canadians.

Simply put, the petition calls on the Minister of National Revenue to investigate certain activities of JNF Canada to determine if those activities are in violation of the Income Tax Act rules and regulations regarding charities.

I am sponsoring the petition in recognition of the right of every Canadian to express their opinion through petitions to their government. This petition, in my view, is in no way anti-JNF Canada. It is to make sure that the laws are followed regarding charities, and that every charitable organization follows the rules and regulations.

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, May 14th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the treaty with Madagascar, since that is the subject of today’s debate.

After the committee study, does my colleague think that the bill is a one-way deal?

Our economic relations with Madagascar are based primarily on Canadian mining companies operating there. However, there are very few companies from Madagascar operating in Canada. There is some trade, but this treaty is mainly a one-way affair. The Canadian companies operating in Madagascar will be the ones to benefit from it.

Is he concerned about the fact that the treaty is a one-way deal that benefits Madagascar's economy, not Canada's economy?

[Excise Tax Act, May 14th, 2019]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-448, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (supply of digital content).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce my bill. Just yesterday, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and I were in Montreal, where we pledged to introduce a bill to fix a problem with the Excise Tax Act. This is that bill.

Bill C-448 amends the Excise Tax Act to close the loophole that allows Netflix and other digital content distributors not to collect GST even though all other digital content distributors in Canada do. Netflix is the best known of the companies that use this loophole. This bill would also apply to all other foreign digital content distributors that, like Netflix, do not abide by the same tax rules as Canadian companies.

The purpose of the bill is to level the playing field so the same taxation rules apply to everyone. I urge the government to take its cue from this bill and make it its own so we can fix the problem at last.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act, May 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke. I know that the majority of them will support this Senate bill, which is now at third reading.

I want to keep this brief so the bill can move on to the next stages and go for royal assent, which will hopefully come soon.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am pleased to say that I support this bill, which is simply designed to end a practice that has been recognized as cruel, namely keeping cetaceans in captivity.

I do not think anyone in the House would challenge the validity of the scientific evidence showing that cetaceans are highly intelligent creatures that deserve to be treated well so that they too can live a happy life. No one would argue with that. The science on this point is very clear.

This bill is simply aimed at preventing the taking of cetaceans into captivity, except for certain worthy motives, such as rescue, rehabilitation and certain kinds of monitoring that must be done in a respectful manner and, ideally, in their natural state for scientific research purposes.

I think this is a reasonable, well-balanced, common-sense bill that the people of Sherbrooke are sure to support.

We need to rely on scientific data and evidence, which show that cetaceans have a reduced lifespan when they live in captivity. The infant mortality rate is higher, and the facilities that keep them in captivity cannot meet their social and biological needs. They need a lot of space to live. That is a recognized fact and the fundamental reason why this is a good, common-sense bill.

Regardless of the size of the facility, there is no way it can be big enough to meet all of the social and biological needs of cetaceans. They get bored in captivity. They cannot swim as they would in their natural habitat. They cannot swim in a straight line, swim long distances or swim in deep water. When they are in captivity, they spend about 80% of their time at the surface of the water, which is completely unnatural for them. In their natural habitat, they spend 90% of their time underwater.

In captivity, they are fed because they obviously cannot use their sophisticated hunting methods to obtain food. There is simply nothing for them to hunt in their confined spaces. Their diet in captivity is not as varied or nutritious as what they could find in the wild.

They suffer from loneliness, separated from their pods. They generally end up alone. Sometimes they are even separated from their mother and sent elsewhere to be kept in captivity and put on display for the public.

They also suffer from the absence of sounds that they would normally hear in their natural environment. These sounds do not exist in captivity. Sometimes their tanks and interactions with the public cause considerable ambient noise, producing sounds they would not hear in nature.

All these things cause cetaceans to suffer when they are in captivity. This has been proven, and it is extremely cruel to continue this practice.

This is why Canada must take a leadership role. A few weeks or months ago, the public became aware of this issue when they saw several dozen cetaceans being held in captivity in Russia in very small pens and in water much colder than they are used to. They cannot swim to stretch their muscles. Everyone was horrified by these images. Everyone in Canada, Quebec and Sherbrooke expects Canada to set an example and to not stand for this in our country.

The bill is sensible, reasonable and balanced. A vast majority of people in Sherbrooke agree that this practice must be stopped. Canada must step up on the world stage to put an end to this practice around the world and to make sure that we are not complicit in such cruel practices.

I want to congratulate the senator who introduced this bill as well as the bill's sponsor in the House and all those who contributed to the debate to move this bill forward, so that it will receive royal assent as quickly as possible. I will stop here. I want to make sure that this bill moves forward and will receive royal assent as quickly as possible.