Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today there is no denying it: the situation is critical. This is not the time to celebrate, and the time for empty rhetoric is over. We have heard many facts today. I think that in the days and years to come, it will be time to take action.

Here on this side of the House, no one is denying the importance, the extreme importance, of this issue. No one is denying the facts about what is happening around the globe. The planet is suffering from the actions of human beings and the actions of several governments, including the Conservative government, that have not been at the forefront of international action.

Some members of the government do not even believe in climate change; they do not believe it exists. The Minister of Natural Resources is even denying the significance of a two-degree temperature increase. At least on this side of the House, we care about these issues and know how serious they are.

I do not know if people know how old I am, but I hope to still be here in 80 years and I hope to see my 100th birthday. As a young person, this issue makes me think carefully about the decisions we make today and the long-term repercussions they will have.

We must not spend the next two years thinking about making a decision and see whether it will get a party elected or whether it will be good for winning an election. Instead, decisions must be made in the interest of all generations, particularly the younger generation.

I am sure that many people have children or know young people. We know how important it is to work to ensure that our planet is still in good shape for the people who will still be here when we are gone. That is why I think that today's topic is extremely important.

I am therefore pleased to speak, particularly on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke who I have been representing in the House of Commons for nearly two years now. It is only natural that I talk about my riding in all of my speeches. However, an issue like the one in today's motion knows no borders. It is truly a global issue that will have an impact on all of the earth's inhabitants.

In my opinion, the House is debating a very worthwhile motion, which I would like to read. The motion makes three main points. It was moved by the hon. member for Halifax who is also the environment critic. She does excellent work. Here is the motion:

That this House: (a) agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency that there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures; (b) condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments; and (c) call on the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.

The members on this side of the House know that action must be taken. That is the purpose of this motion being debated today. This motion serves to try to wake up the Conservative government, which seems to be currently ignoring this issue. The Conservatives seem to think that all is well, that everything is rosy, and that their actions will resolve everything.

Over the past few years, the government has won fossil awards. It has received the attention of international groups that severely criticized its actions. The Conservatives seem to be living in a bubble, unaware of what is being said about them. Anyone who dares to criticize the government is treated as though they are a radical and basically a terrorist who wants to attack the government.

The Conservatives are the only ones in Canada who believe that there is an easy solution to all this, that there is no need to intervene and that small measures here and there will solve the general problem.

They have also gone ahead with deregulation. This is not a lack of action, but action that goes in the wrong direction. They have taken action, but the measures taken, especially with regard to deregulation, are not the right ones. I am thinking primarily of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was completely overhauled. The people of Sherbrooke are being told that, with this law, the Rivière Saint-François is no longer protected. Thus, projects that go under or over the river, such as a pipeline or electrical lines, will no longer have to be approved by anyone. A number of projects could go ahead which could have direct consequences for navigation and possibly the environment.

Getting back to the minister. He denies that there is a problem with respect to a two degree rise in global average temperatures. I often ask myself which scientist he has been talking to. Is he referring to those who are systematically muzzled or those who work for the oil companies and promote the oil sands operations?

The minister has selective hearing. When scientists dare contradict him, he muzzles them outright and does not consider their scientific data. When other data suits his agenda, then he is very happy with it. Unfortunately, the data comes from just a few people, who are often linked to very powerful lobbies that have specific interests in a number of areas.

The minister adds insult to injury by saying that he is not aware of a recent warning by the International Energy Agency that two-thirds of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground to ensure that global average temperatures do not climb by more than two degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial temperatures.

The fact remains that climate change is a reality. It is an issue that we must take seriously. For far too long, the Conservatives and the Liberals have done nothing to reduce greenhouse gases. What is worse, we were the first to withdraw from Kyoto and, just a little while ago, we were the first to withdraw from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.

That brings me to the Liberals. As I was saying, they are hypocrites, if I may say that in the House. They talk the talk, but they are all talk and no action, as we say. The Liberals like to talk and say that they are on top of this issue and that it is important to them, yet when they had the chance, they did not take any meaningful action to resolve this problem that has been around for a very long time, long before the Conservatives took power.

Today, the Liberals are claiming to want to protect the planet and our environment, but not once did they do anything when they had the chance. This is unacceptable, and today's motion reflects the fact that there have not been any meaningful measures from successive federal governments since 1998. I must point out that the Conservatives are not the only ones who have failed to act and who continue to ignore the problem, since the Liberals did the same thing and will likely continue to do so, as they have always done.

I see that my time is running out, so I will conclude by saying that I hope we never have to debate this again. I hope this motion will wake the government up and inspire it to act. I also hope that future parliaments will not have to discuss this subject, since action will have been taken and the issue will have been resolved once and for all, to make the planet a good place to live for future generations.

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my Conservative colleague a question about Canada's international reputation, which is losing much of its lustre.

I would like him to comment on this as a member of Parliament. What does he think of Canada's current reputation as a country that has received countless fossil awards and been criticized around the world by international groups that oppose the government's decisions?

What does he think of his government now that it has been so harshly criticized internationally and been singled out over and over for failure to act?

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question. She seems to want to rewrite history today by saying it is the NDP's fault that the Conservatives came to power in 2006.

How many times did the Liberals support the Conservatives, saving them when they were a minority government? It is their fault that the Conservatives have been in power for eight years now, and it is their fault if they stay in power. If she wants to rewrite history, I will tell her exactly what has happened over the past few years.

I would also like to ask her a question. I was astounded to hear it said that the Liberals took action, because we know, and we have said it over and over again, that emissions increased by 30% when they were in power.

Can she tell us how they can possibly say that they support reducing greenhouse gas emissions when they did the opposite when they were in power?

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to ask my colleague a question.

At the end of the day yesterday, the Speaker delivered his ruling. Does my colleague still think that today's motion is relevant and important, given the Speaker's ruling? The ruling pointed out that all members are free to rise, just as they are during debates. Members rise and speak. The same principle applies during question period and member statements. I could go into some detail, but this question does not give me much time.

Does my colleague still believe that this motion is of critical importance in light of the Speaker's ruling?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, enlightening as usual.

I would like to ask him about the government's way of doing things. He already talked about it in his speech. I actually think the bill could have been passed a number of weeks, if not months, ago because it is here and we have been debating it for some time. The government brought it back as a way of setting aside a Liberal motion that would have embarrassed them. The government tends to avoid some debates and to bring others back on the agenda, when sad events take place.

Could the hon. member comment on the government's opportunistic attitude?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was excellent, as always.

I would like to hear her thoughts on the government's habit of reacting to specific events by introducing a bill. This is very opportunistic. She mentioned that in her speech.

Could the member talk more about the fact that the government is using specific events to change laws? These laws apply to all Canadians, they will apply for years to come and they will have repercussions. As a legislator, it is trying to react only to specific events. The government is also trying to be opportunistic by using such events to advance its own ideologies. Why do we need to be wary of this kind of approach?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague appeared to have some reservations about the constitutionality of Bill S-7 in terms of rights being respected.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine also suggested that this bill might not meet the constitutional test.

I recall a story about Department of Justice officials reviewing bills hastily so that the bills would be introduced in Parliament more quickly, even though the fundamental rights of Canadians could be undermined.

That makes me wonder whether my colleague thinks, as I do, that the process should be tightened up, given the allegations that we heard not long ago.

Tightening up the process for bills sent to the House of Commons and the Senate would enable us to ensure that the bills we are currently debating undergo a rigorous test and that they are valid and constitutional. All of this would be done prior to debating the bills in the House.

Would my colleague like to comment on that?

[Committees of the House, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Privacy and Social Media in the Age of Big Data”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for her very interesting speech and for the work she does on immigration.

Today I would like to know whether she agrees with the fact that this program can be useful. It has been in the past and still is at times, but it has some flaws that sometimes allow employers—and I am not judging them—to abuse the program and use it to try to reduce their costs and the salaries of their employees. They use foreign workers who agree to be paid less than Canadian workers. Sometimes, Canadian workers are qualified and able to do these jobs, but, unfortunately, they are replaced by employees who get paid a lower wage.

Does the hon. member think this is currently a problem that we should be addressing as soon as possible?

[Conservative Party of Canada, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative mutineers have finally spoken. The Prime Minister and his cronies have crossed the line with their latest orders. On one side, there is the captain of the Costa Conservative and his staff, who refuse to admit to the slightest mistake even when one of their own reveals that he believes women are only good for one thing: making cookies. On the other side, there is the crew, which is ready to throw their control-freak captain overboard.

Unfortunately, their revolt has nothing to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes set out in the budget. No. The mutineers want to maintain their rights. The mutineers want choice. They want to have control over their own statements and, at the same time, they want to have control over a woman's right to choose.

While the Conservatives are fighting amongst themselves about whether women should be sent back to the 19th or the 18th century, the NDP is proudly supporting the rights of women, workers and families. Our boat is sailing peacefully towards victory in 2015.