Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[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.

[BAN ON SHARK FIN IMPORTATION ACT, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-380, introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam. I thank the member for his work on this issue. I know he has been working extremely hard to move forward on this and that he has conducted extensive consultations.

There seems to be a consensus regarding this bill, except on the part of the Conservatives, who have a habit of opposing sensible legislation.

Nevertheless, I rise here today in the hopes of convincing them, since there will be a vote on this next Wednesday, if I am not mistaken. I hope we will have the support of enough members of the House to pass this bill and send it to committee.

I thought it was important for me to rise and express my support for this bill, and that of most of my NDP colleagues, at second reading here today. From what I understand, the Liberals will also be supporting it. I hope all members of that party will do so. I also hope that the Conservatives will get on board this time in order to put an end to this problem, which is affecting more and more marine ecosystems around the world. I will come back to this point a little later.

To begin with, as usual, when I study a bill, I like to see for myself exactly what is in the legislation. The bill we are studying here today is very simple. It contains two important points.

First of all, this bill amends the Fish Inspection Act. It prohibits the importation of shark fins not attached to the rest of the shark carcass. That detail is important. It is an important aspect of the legislation that I will explain in detail a little later. Second, the bill amends the Fisheries Act to prohibit the practice of shark finning. I support both of these very simple, sensible clauses in the bill.

The bill adds subsection 3.1(1) to section 3 of the Fish Inspection Act to prohibit the importation of fins, with some exceptions, since special permits can nevertheless be issued.

In addition, the bill also adds subsection 32.1(1) to the Fisheries Act, prohibiting the practice of shark finning and defining that practice. Those are the two amendments this bill makes.

Why are these measures important? Why did my colleague decide to introduce this bill today? The reason is very simple: we currently have a very serious problem with our oceans. Shark species are going extinct. In fact, approximately one-third of species are currently in danger of extinction. This is therefore a critical and urgent problem that we want Canada to help solve.

I know that this bill will not eliminate the problem overnight. However, at least Canada will have sent a very clear message that we are taking measures to try to reduce this practice as much as possible because we are aware of the problem that it is currently causing.

The situation is critical. We must take action to protect and preserve our marine ecosystems. Sharks are at the very top of the ocean food chain, and so they play an extremely important role in the survival of the ecosystem in general, which would be greatly affected by the extinction of most species of sharks. Sharks are a vital component of the ecosystem.

I would like to mention some important statistics. I think that all the members who spoke today mentioned that approximately 100 million sharks are killed every year for their fins.

If that trend continues, up to 20 shark species could be functionally extinct by 2017. Another important statistic: Canada imports an average of just over 100 tons of shark fins per year. According to a CTV news report, testing conducted in British Columbia to determine whether shark fins could easily be found in Canada and what species those fins came from showed that 76% of shark fins came from endangered species of sharks. That means that most shark fins in Canada come from endangered species.

How is shark finning done? In my opinion, this is a horrible, barbaric and abominable practice. It is inhumane to do what is being done right now: fishers are setting lines that are 85 km long in the hopes of catching sharks, knowing full well that many other species will be killed by this type of fishing. The sharks are even sometimes still alive when they are brought onto the boats. The sharks' fins are simply cut off and their bodies are dumped back into the ocean. Clearly, the sharks will then die because they cannot swim without their fins. It is hard to believe.

When I watched the documentary Sharkwater recently, I was quite surprised and disappointed to see that human beings are capable of being so disrespectful toward nature. These animals are basically being tortured. As I mentioned earlier, it is important that Canada send a clear message in this regard, and that is the spirit of this bill. Clearly, we object to this practice.

Earlier, I heard a member say that this could hurt the economy, but we know full well that shark meat is eaten only on rare occasions. Shark meat is rarely eaten. Most of the time, sharks are fished simply for their fins since their meat cannot be eaten because it often contains too much mercury. It is a bit of a flawed argument to say that the industry could also produce shark meat. It is a bit of a stretch to say that this would hurt the economy.

Communities that eat shark are changing their customs. The member for Brossard—La Prairie gave a speech about it. He said that the majority of communities and the new generation oppose the practice. Many countries, including China, have prohibited importing shark fins. China has also imposed restrictions, because it does not want shark fin to be served at its official banquets. The Chinese government has even signalled that it does not agree with the practice, which is a threat to our ecosystems.

I do not have much time left, so I would like to conclude by thanking my colleague once again and congratulating him. Today, Canada has a duty to send a message that we oppose this practice and we no longer want to be part of this trade, which is often a black market trade and even involves organized crime. This bill sends a clear message to the international community that we are taking this situation seriously, that we want to protect our ecosystems and that we want to protect the environment for future generations who will have to deal with the fallout of this practice if we do not put an immediate end to it.

I encourage all of my colleagues, from all sides, to support this bill and send it to committee so that any necessary amendments can be made. I know that my colleague is open to sensible proposals. At the very least, this bill should be sent to committee.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right off the bat that I share my colleague's passion for the armed forces. I have many reservists living in my riding and I visit them quite often. I also frequently visit two regiments in my riding, the Sherbrooke Hussars and the Fusiliers de Sherbrooke. These are two extraordinary regiments and I salute them today.

My colleague mentioned that everyone should have the same rights, but that military justice is unique, since there is a chain of command. My colleagues have spoken about that already today. There must be a difference, of course. We must ensure that the people who serve our country and who dedicate their lives to Canada are entitled to the rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the charter gives everyone the right to fair and equitable justice and access to counsel. That is not covered in Bill C-15. Despite the differences in the military justice system, members of the military must have the same rights as all Canadian citizens, which includes access to a fair and equitable justice system. As stated in section 10 of the charter, they must also have the right to retain and instruct counsel and receive legal advice, which is not currently the case. Members of our military deserve some respect for everything they go through every day.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, as a parliamentarian and legislator, my goal is not to prolong debates, but to make a positive contribution to the debate in order to ensure that a law that is passed is well written and that there is no chance that a bad bill will have direct consequences for the people covered by the bill. That is the duty of legislators.

I cannot speak for the MPs in the 40th Parliament. Like my colleague, the member for Ajax—Pickering and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I was not a member in the 40th Parliament. However, I do know that some specific things were asked for and they were not included in Bill C-15. We were never given an answer by the government about that.

As for our position on clause 4, I would say that if the proposed amendments are not adopted, it will not prevent us from voting in favour of Bill C-15 in its present form.