Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Ethics, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her very apt question.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics deals with very important matters. The committee is currently conducting a study on privacy and social media.

In committee or in the House, MPs should conduct themselves in a very ethical manner, including not making things up about other parties.

Conservative tactics have been denounced widely, with some media even asking how stupid the Conservatives think Canadians are.

As the chair of the ethics committee, I invite my colleagues across the way to address that question in committee if they want.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas a question.

He mentioned a few concerns that Quebec shares regarding foreign takeovers that will affect all Canadians, not only those who live or work in the regions where the takeovers occur.

I wonder if my colleague would agree that the process needs to be more transparent.

Bill C-38 is a 400-page long document that implemented certain provisions of the budget tabled in 2012. It amended the Investment Canada Act and gave the minister greater freedoms regarding the disclosure of reasons for his decision, but only after the decision has been made.

Does my colleague think that the government should instead open up the process the minister uses to make his decision and hold public hearings in order to be more transparent when it comes to sharing his reasons for arriving at a given decision?

The Conservatives go on and on about how the minister will make his decision in the best interest of Canadians. That is what they keep telling us.

Why is this decision not being made in consultation with all of the stakeholders involved and with Canadians in general?

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher a question. His speeches are always so eloquent and interesting, which I quite like.

It seems to me that the process is not very clear. In his speech, my colleague talked about polls. Would my colleague agree that the Conservatives like to make decisions based on how much resistance they will get from Canadians and that clear processes are not usually established until a situation arises?

It seems that decisions are made based on the degree of resistance from Canadians and that the Conservatives do not really want to serve the interests of all Canadians. Basically, their main goal is to win votes.

Does my colleague believe, like I do, that we need to create a clear and precise process that can be used in future transactions?

[Helping Families in Need Act, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I actually noticed more or less the same thing. Earlier, I spoke about a problem with the bill on missing or deceased children where no crime has been committed. I feel as though there is a vacuum here. The answer that I got earlier from the Conservatives was that the today’s bill focuses on missing or deceased children where a crime has been committed. However, it is just as dramatic for a family when a child commits suicide, for example. No crime has been committed, but a child has died nevertheless. This program would not apply in such a case, because we are only talking about cases involving the Criminal Code, cases where a crime has been committed.

Does the member agree with me that the bill could be more inclusive and provide relief to grieving families?

[Helping Families in Need Act, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to what I asked a government member earlier.

I have some concerns about the provision of this bill that deals with leave related to death or disappearance. The provision clearly specifies that the death or disappearance must result from a crime, which is defined as “an offence under the Criminal Code”.

Thus, parents who lose a child in some way other than as a result of a crime, for example by drowning or suicide, will not have access to this program. The bill talks about leave but only if the death or disappearance of the child is the result of a crime under the Criminal Code.

In his response, the hon. member said that he wanted to focus only on cases resulting from crime. Does he not think that this provision could be expanded to include all parents who have lost a child?

[Helping Families in Need Act, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have one concern with respect to the part about leave in the case of a death or disappearance, where the bill clearly specifies that this applies only if a crime occurred, defined as “an offence under the Criminal Code, other than one that is excluded by the regulations”. Parents will be eligible for this program only if their child has disappeared as the result of a crime under the Criminal Code.

I am concerned about parents who lose a child under other circumstances. Their child may have drowned in a river or disappeared in some other way not associated with a crime; in other words, the child may not have been killed. The child may also have committed suicide. Bill C-44 is about children under the age of 18. Such parents will be just as sad, but they will not be eligible for this program if the death or disappearance of their child is not the result of a crime.

[Helping Families in Need Act, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech, which was very interesting.

Everyone here today agrees that this bill can help families who have been the victims of various tragic situations. That is why it is important to support this bill at second reading.

However, as the hon. member also mentioned, several aspects of it are less attractive. Specifically, when the Conservatives promised to introduce this measure, it was supposed to be paid for out of general revenue. But now we see that the money will be taken from the employment insurance fund.

Does the hon. member believe that this is the right thing to do? Employees and employers pay into the employment insurance fund, although the government stopped paying into it around 1995; the government no longer invests a single cent in that fund. Does the member believe that taking money from the EI fund is the right way to go about this?

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, to an extent, I will echo the comments of the hon. Conservative member by asking a question to the hon. member, who was, in fact, a member of the Liberal government some years ago.

It is a little ironic to hear them talk about inequality today, knowing that the Liberals like to present themselves as the defenders of equality. But instead the motion highlights the weaknesses of the Liberal approach because we know that, from 1989 to 2009, the Gini coefficient increased substantially, from 0.28 to 0.32. This index is widely used in the field to calculate income inequality in every country in the world.

Can she explain why their approach did not work when the Liberals formed the government and why the inequality continued to increase for all those years?

[Ethics, June 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the meeting was cancelled last night. It is an entirely standard practice. Most of the committees were cancelled today, as it is the last sitting day of the House.

I will say again that there was no discussion with the Leader of the Opposition. That is completely false. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will stop there because these are allegations that members should not have made. They should at least respect the chairs of committees.

[Ethics, June 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question.

I am not sure where he gets his information from, but the meeting was cancelled last night. I asked that it be cancelled because we knew that today would be the last sitting day of the House. It is normal practice to cancel meetings when it is the last day. A number of committee meetings were already cancelled for today, which is perfectly normal.

The motion is still on the notice of motions. If the hon. member wants to move the motion when we return in September, then he is free to do so. It will still be there.