Ève Péclet

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, May 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my question is fairly straightforward.

For the past 10 years, we have seen a drastic increase in the transportation of dangerous goods by rail. Since the tragic Lac-Mégantic derailment, the government has hired one or maybe two new inspectors. Since the regulations do not set a limit on the number of cars, sometimes one inspector has to inspect thousands of cars. I looked at the 2015-16 budget and I did not find anything at all in there about rail safety.

I would like my colleague to tell me why the budget makes no mention of rail safety.

[Ethics, May 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, not only did the Prime Minister's Office stay well informed, but it also decided to intervene. First, the Prime Minister's staff got its hands on a so-called confidential report. Then, the staff tried to alter the findings to protect the reputation of his good friend Mr. Duffy.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why he let members of his office tamper with the Senate's files?

[Ethics, May 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we are learning a little bit more about the saga of the activities of the Prime Minister's Office.

Canadians expect the Prime Minister's Office to work on government issues, for example, on their behalf. However, in 2012, some members of the Prime Minister's Office were instead working on handling the Senate scandal.

Did the Prime Minister task his staff to look after Senate business?

[Ethics, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate expense scandal is an illustration of this government's mismanagement.

Just as we are learning that 10 or so other senators are under criminal investigation by the RCMP, the crown prosecutor is trying to prevent a Senate report from being submitted as evidence at former senator Duffy's trial—

[Pipeline Safety Act, April 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, here is my question for my hon. colleague: Why do this bill's provisions cover only pipelines that transport at least 250,000 barrels of oil a day?

In the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, a smaller company unfortunately caused unimaginable damage. I do not see why this bill excludes pipelines that transport 150,000 or 200,000 barrels a day. If an accident or a spill happens, they could cause as much damage as a pipeline transporting 250,000 or 300,000 barrels a day.

Why does the government think that communities that would be affected by a spill from a smaller pipeline do not deserve the same protection as a community that would be affected by a spill from a pipeline transporting 250,000 barrels a day? I would like my hon. colleague to explain why that is not covered in the bill.

[Ethics, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the government is supposed to defend the interests of all Canadians, not just the interests of an oil company.

Enbridge is claiming that at no time did it ask Senator Duffy to further its interests with the federal government. Mr. Duffy, however, thought that those meetings were important enough to send a note to the Prime Minister's chief of staff on February 20, 2012.

Did the Prime Minister receive that note? What was the subject of his meeting with Mr. Duffy on April 4, 2012?

[Ethics, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's silence on those meetings is really troubling. The Prime Minister's former chief of staff had ties to Enbridge. Mr. Duffy was talking to Enbridge, and the Prime Minister met with Mr. Duffy to discuss Enbridge, and yet we get nothing from across the aisle: radio silence, as if nothing had happened.

Do the Prime Minister and his team have something to hide regarding their role and the senator's role in the Enbridge file?

[Ethics, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we now know that former senator Mike Duffy was not appointed to the Senate just to introduce or amend bills. His discussions with the Prime Minister's entourage and the oil companies were part of his duties. His diary indicates that on April 4, 2012, he spoke directly to the Prime Minister about Enbridge projects.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that he indeed had this discussion with Mike Duffy in April 2012?

[Ethics, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we understand why it was so important to the Prime Minister to have Mike Duffy on the Hill. He was one of the best and hardest-working Conservative senators. Nevertheless, today he is before the courts. He should never have been appointed as a senator for Prince Edward Island. Mr. Duffy was not even living there and did not even have a PEI driver's licence or health card.

Why was the Prime Minister so hell-bent on appointing Mike Duffy as a senator for a province where he did not even live, in violation of such clear rules?

[Ethics, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Mike Duffy's diary shows us the real nature of his work as a senator. He was not working on bills, rather he was lobbying for oil companies. The relationship between Enbridge and the Prime Minister's entourage was quite healthy thanks to Mike Duffy. Nevertheless, the registry of lobbyists does not make any mention of these discreet little meetings between friends.

Did the Prime Minister talk to Senator Mike Duffy about Enbridge's pipeline projects?