Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Canada Labour Code, April 1st, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning in support of Bill C-420. I want to thank the member for his work on the bill he has introduced today in the House.

This is an opportunity for me to set the record straight on something he just said. The member for La Pointe-de-l'Île painted all federalist parties with the same brush, but the NDP is a very strong ally with respect to Quebec's claims in Ottawa. This has been our trademark for many years, since well before the 2011 orange wave. This was a focus and priority for our leader, Jack Layton.

We continue to recognize the Quebec nation. The NDP has what we call the Sherbrooke declaration, and I encourage my Bloc Québécois colleagues to read it. The Sherbrooke declaration presents our vision of Quebec within Canada as a partner with rights. The declaration also recognizes Quebec's distinctiveness. I simply wanted to correct my colleague on this.

I remind members that not only do I support Bill C-420, but many of my colleagues in the 42nd Parliament have also introduced similar measures. It goes without saying that I support this bill from my Bloc Québécois colleague and, in particular, the part that deals with anti-scab legislation.

My colleague from Jonquière introduced a similar bill, an identical one in fact. She wrote the part of Bill C-420 that refers to scabs. She very eloquently promoted this initiative to prevent the use of scabs in our country. She also wanted to provide unions with tools to defend themselves in dealing with employers who replace striking workers and violate the right to bargaining and the right to strike. The Bloc Québécois knows it can count on the support of the NDP on that point.

My colleague from Jonquière did not propose this initiative for nothing. She gave it her all. She involved many others in her work, including unions. Unfortunately, the government dismissed out of hand the idea of adopting anti-scab legislation. That is not surprising, when we consider that soon afterward, the Liberals passed special legislation forcing Canada Post workers back to work. That is no coincidence.

The Liberals never side with workers, even when they have the opportunity to do so. Instead, they side with employers, as we have seen. These are two examples that show that the Liberal government may talk a good game, but when it comes time to act, it always sides with employers. Whether they are voting against anti-scab legislation or passing back-to-work legislation to prevent strikes and collective bargaining, the Liberals always side with the employer.

The second part of the bill seeks to offer pregnant women rights similar to those enjoyed by women in Quebec who do not work for federally regulated businesses, namely the right to preventive withdrawal when they are pregnant or nursing. When their work is considered hazardous to the health of their unborn or nursing baby, women should have the right to preventive withdrawal. It goes without saying that we support such an initiative.

My colleagues from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Abitibi—Témiscamingue both introduced similar initiatives, which shows that we agree on this point. Not only do I support this bill, but my NDP colleagues introduced similar initiatives.

Many employers in Quebec fall under federal jurisdiction, including banks, airports, airlines and ports.

There are many other examples, particularly in the telecommunications sector, which employs many Quebeckers. This therefore affects a lot of people. We sometimes tend to think that only a small number of people are involved. However, when we count them all up, we realize that many of our fellow citizens would fall under this law, which would improve on the rights they currently enjoy.

The other aspect of this bill governing businesses under federal jurisdiction is the application of the right to work in French in Quebec. Naturally, this is an initiative that we support. I will give an example to remind our Bloc Québécois colleagues that we support them. Our NDP colleague, the member for Trois-Rivières, introduced a similar bill to give francophones the right to work in their language in Quebec in federally regulated businesses. Unfortunately, this bill was rejected by the government in 2012, even though our colleague also fought hard for it.

Those are a few examples of the NDP's support for Quebeckers, the protection of the French language and the protection of workers' rights. This shows that we can rally behind the Bloc Québécois bill.

This bill is a step in the right direction, and we hope the other parties in the House will support it. NDP members who have introduced similar initiatives know what it is like to run up against fierce opposition from both Conservative and Liberal governments. Those two parties joined forces against NDP members every time we introduced those initiatives.

I hope the Bloc Québécois's initiative will win the Conservative and Liberal support we never got. I wish the Bloc the best of luck because it will need that support to get this bill passed.

We know how the House of Commons works, how voting works. I hope the Bloc Québécois will find many Liberal and Conservative supporters. My point is that not all federal parties are the same. As a federal party, the NDP is special and unique in that it not only recognizes Quebec, but gives it the rights, powers and abilities it needs to develop its skills, its identity and its distinct character within Canada.

This is a good opportunity for me to support this bill and the workers who deserve our support now more than ever. In fact, workers all too often continue to find themselves under attack by their employers. Their rights are violated every day in the workplace. All too often, the workers whose rights are being violated by their employer have to deal with a government that does not listen to them. When it comes time to defend these workers, successive governments have sided with employers, large corporations and multinationals, who all have the ear of the Prime Minister when they knock on his door.

This was the case on a recent file that I will not name. When a multinational knocks on the Prime Minister's door, the response is quick, and tough measures are quickly put in place to help. Inappropriate pressure is even used to get things done for these corporations and multinationals. That is what is happening in the office of the current Liberal Prime Minister, who is very quick to respond to requests from multinationals and large corporations. When employees of companies like Sears or GM need help from their government, they are told to wait and that the government will get around to them at some point. Meanwhile, when the heads of large corporations knock at the door, they get immediate assistance.

I congratulate my Bloc Québécois colleague. We will gladly support him, as we did in the past with our own initiatives regarding workers' rights and the French language in Quebec.

[The Budget, March 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Liberal government presented its last-chance budget. As with the previous budgets from the past few years, this was a missed opportunity. Since the government is embroiled in a scandal involving political interference in the justice system, it knew that this was probably its last chance to effect significant, lasting change. However, this is just another missed opportunity. Instead, the government is fuelling political cynicism by repeating election promises it made in 2015 and has yet to keep. It is now 2019.

The pharmacare that the Liberals have been promising for 20 years will have to wait. During the election campaign, the Liberals will try to make people believe that this time, it will work out, and that they can trust them.

Supply-managed farmers will also have to wait to get any money, even though the impact of CETA and the TPP has been known for some time. They will have to wait until after the election. What is more, there is nothing about NAFTA 2.0.

Tax fairness will also have to wait, as the Liberals admitted that they have recovered only a fraction of the $25 billion targeted. Deductions for stock options are known to be very regressive. The Minister of Finance says that we will have to do something about that later. In the meantime, $1.3 billion went into the pockets of 2,000 people who earned more than $1 million in 2017. The web giants continue to get a free pass under the Liberal government until the next election.

The worst thing of all is the lack of ambition with respect to the environment. Young people marched in the streets last Friday and on the weekend calling for concrete action on climate change. The Liberals allocated a measly $87 million. Of the $40 billion in new government expenditures, $87 million has been allocated to Environment and Climate Change Canada.

My question is simple. Considering the clear lack of leadership on this crucial issue, when will the minister and his government step aside and let real leaders on climate change turn things around?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2019]

With regard to housing investments and housing assets held by the government: (a) how much federal funding has been spent in the constituency of Sherbrooke on housing over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (b) how much federal funding is scheduled to be spent on housing in the constituency of Sherbrooke over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (c) how much federal funding has been invested in cooperative housing in the constituency of Sherbrooke over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (d) how much federal funding is scheduled to be invested in cooperative housing in the constituency of Sherbrooke over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; (e) how many physical housing units were owned by the government in the constituency of Sherbrooke over the period of 1995 to 2017, broken down by year; (f) how many physical housing units owned by the government are scheduled to be constructed in the constituency of Sherbrooke over the period of 2015 to 2019, broken down by year; and (g) what government buildings and lands have been identified in the constituency of Sherbrooke as surplus and available for affordable housing developments?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2019]

With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Sherbrooke, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program they applied for funding under, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Sherbrooke that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Sherbrooke by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, February 27th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, though his remarks were a little unsettling at times. In fact, the member seems to probably have a different view of taxes than most Canadians.

I have a very specific question, which I will ask him after providing a bit of context. At this time, all governments around the world are in a race to lower taxes. All countries are competing on taxes. My colleague seemed to suggest that the solution is to take part in this race to the bottom and to make our taxes as low as those of tax havens. This would allow us to compete with them, stop the flow of money that should stay in Canada and return money to Canada thanks to lower taxes.

Is the Conservatives' position really to have taxes that are just as low as those of tax havens to ensure that there will be no loopholes and that Canadians will no longer use tax havens? Is that the Conservatives' position?

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, February 27th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and many interventions at the Standing Committee on Finance. I know that he is very knowledgeable about his files, especially tax conventions and double taxation agreements, which aim to help our corporations be successful and to ensure tax fairness for corporations that do business abroad.

With Bill C-82, the government hopes to revise all our tax conventions because public officials have indicated that some taxpayers abuse them. I know that my colleague is very conversant with Bill C-82 as well.

Would he also acknowledge in the House that, absent the changes provided for in Bill C-82, our tax conventions are being abused by certain Canadian taxpayers in order to avoid paying their fair share of Canadian taxes?

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I had the same reaction as my colleague. For once, I agree with the member for Winnipeg North.

I must remind the Canadians who are watching at home that we began with three good 20-minute speeches that were directly related to Bill S-6. They were given by the parliamentary secretary, a member of the Bloc Québécois, and me, which I say in all modesty. A Conservative member also gave a speech that was more or less related to Bill S-6. The Conservatives focused a little less on the bill, but they mostly stayed on topic.

When my colleague finishes her speech, will she allow the bill to be passed? All of the parties agree. The Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals and the NDP all agree on the bill. Could the member allow us to move on to the next item on the orders of the day? She is criticizing the Liberals' agenda and priorities. Can we move on to the next priority after her speech, or will another Conservative member, perhaps the finance critic, be speaking?

If so, it will mean that the Conservatives are the ones filibustering today in the House.

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and the work he does on financial and tax matters on the Standing Committee on Finance.

He is familiar with our tax treaties. To return to Bill S-6, I was wondering whether my colleague shares the NDP’s concerns that tax treaties can be abused over time, and that they can become a means of avoiding and ultimately evading taxes.

Does my colleague share these concerns about the treaties? Does he think that, as a country, we should not be blindly signing treaties with other countries? We have 93 or 94 such treaties now. Does he agree that we should not be blinded by these treaties but that we should do our due diligence to make sure that, over time, they do not end up facilitating tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance?

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his expertise on the matter. I know that he also analyzed Bill C-82. I am sure that he fully understands the fact that this bill aims to renew and improve our tax treaties. Our partners must also accept the improvement of a treaty; it goes both ways.

Today, we are studying Bill S-6, a tax treaty with Madagascar. However, this treaty was modelled on the old system. The tax treaty was signed on November 24, 2016, and the multilateral treaty, which is the subject of Bill C-82, was signed on the same day in Paris. Therefore, while a treaty was being signed in Antananarivo, Madagascar, and another in Paris, two different things were being signed.

Can my colleague tell us about the difference between the new and improved OECD treaties, which were adopted in Paris, and the one signed in Madagascar, which is based on a version that the government believes taxpayers can abuse?

[Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018, February 21st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that great question and for his expertise on this subject.

This is a glaring problem. The example he described is just one of many. Companies, especially multinational corporations, are using highly complex tax schemes because they can afford to do so. My neighbour in Sherbrooke cannot afford to pay an accountant to figure out how to exploit the same loopholes, because that would cost him far more than he owes in taxes.

Taxpayers like the mining company my colleague mentioned can afford to hire tax lawyers to explain how to use complex tax schemes. Even the CRA's top auditors have a hard time untangling all these schemes, especially in light of the bank secrecy arrangements that certain countries have. That means these companies get away with shirking their tax responsibilities.

It is important to do due diligence and monitor our tax treaties to ensure that they do not become abusive. It is also important to take measures to ensure that companies pay taxes at the correct rate in Canada, even when our foreign partners have lower tax rates. There are ways to achieve that, and it is important to study these kinds of potential solutions.