Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[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.

[Infrastructure, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in their most recent budget, the Conservatives have abandoned the regions.

My riding has a desperate need for infrastructure, particularly an operational regional airport, to help its economic development, create jobs and maintain existing jobs.

In April, when he visited Sherbrooke for a photo op, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged the importance of this project for our region, yet, the Conservatives have remained silent since that time.

Is the Sherbrooke airport still an important infrastructure project for the Conservative government?

[Petitions, June 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by many people from Sherbrooke who are upset the Development and Peace organization has seen its budget reduced by three-quarters. These cuts will result in almost $35 million less in matching government monies for Development and Peace over the next five years. This organization was supporting over 250 partners in about 40 different countries.

CIDA’s new agreement designates funds for a mere seven countries, only one of which is in Africa. Development and Peace has already had to reduce financial support to 32 partner groups in the Global South. And funding for 48 other countries will likely have to be cut completely. Furthermore, 15 staff positions have been lost in Canada.

In the interests of international solidarity, the petitioners are calling on the government to fully restore the $49.2 million in funding to Development and Peace.

[Committees of the House, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, regarding its study on expenditures incurred by the members of the board of directors and the officials at the Old Port of Montréal Corporation.

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