Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick and simple question for the hon. member.

This reminds me of the debate on Canada Post, when the Conservatives pitted two groups of people against one another: workers and other Canadians.

We are seeing the same thing here. One might say that the hon. member does not think Canadians who work at Air Canada have the same rights as every other Canadian across the country, in other words the right to negotiate agreements with their employers or go on strike. These fundamental rights have been recognized for years.Today we are being told that Air Canada employees do not have the same rights as other employees.

I have a very simple question: does the hon. member think that Air Canada employees have the same rights as every other Canadian, in other words the right to negotiate their collective agreement?

[Committees of the House, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just tabled a report by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics concerning CBC. Pursuant to Standing Order 35(2), I will take a few minutes this morning to briefly explain the dissenting opinion we included in the report.

Following a study undertaken by the Conservatives in committee, several principles underlying our parliamentary system were challenged. Allow me to explain. We were very concerned by the questionable procedures the committee employed for this study, including the adoption of a government motion to require that redacted and unredacted documents at the heart of a legal conflict be reviewed by committee members. This motion overstepped the boundaries of a Commons committee's jurisdiction.

A legal opinion provided by Rob Walsh, retired law clerk and parliamentary counsel, reinforced our concern about this procedure. He noted the political nature of the study, which was being carried out at the same time as a case being heard independently by the court. He said:

A House Committee should not, in my view, take on the role of a court—or even appear to take on the role of a court—by addressing whether particular actions taken by a party are permissible under the Act. To do so is to encroach upon—or to appear to encroach upon—the constitutional function of the courts. Such an encroachment would offend the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative functions and possibly call into question the validity of ETHI's proceedings.

We firmly believe that the Conservatives have exceeded their authority in committee to the point of challenging certain fundamental principles of our political system.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to talk about our dissenting opinion today.

[Senate Reform Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask the hon. member a question. As she mentioned several times, this bill is a phoney reform. I get the impression that the Conservatives are trying to dodge the issue and avoid a constitutional debate. Right now, they are introducing a bill that will allow the Prime Minister to keep his power to choose. We do not need to amend the Constitution to do that. I get the impression that this bill is a way to avoid having the constitutional debate that perhaps we should have. The Conservatives are trying to undertake a reform without talking about the main issue—the Senate. We have reiterated our position on the Senate a number of times.

Does the hon. member think that, with this debate, the Conservatives are trying to avoid the issue and that they are pretending to undertake a reform without opening the debate on the Constitution?

[Senate Reform Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the speech by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

He spoke of the rhetoric in the preamble to the bill that the Conservatives are using to try and mislead people. The term “independent” is used, for example. I had not noticed it when I read the bill. I find it quite ridiculous that this term is used in a bill that refers to the Senate. In fact, it is quite clear that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have appointed party cronies to work in the other chamber and that they are accountable to the Prime Minister. That much is clear and nobody here questions it. Even they would have to agree that senators are accountable to the Prime Minister. Abolishing the Senate, an archaic institution in our 21st-century political system, could obviously change this.

I would like to know whether the member believes the bill would make the partisanship problem in the other chamber worse and that an election—which would inevitably involve political parties—would only aggravate the partisanship in the other house and actually make things worse?

[Senate Reform Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his excellent speech.

I would like to know whether he agrees with me on something. Is the government not just creating a smokescreen with this bill—as it has with other bills—in claiming to want to reform the Senate? This is not the first time, because the government has been saying it wants to reform the Senate for years now. However, it presents us with false reforms every time. This bill still leaves the Prime Minister with the power to decide who he will appoint to the Senate, creating a situation whereby the elected candidates will not necessarily be appointed. Is it not ridiculous, today, to ask people to run in an election to become senators, knowing that after they win there is still no guarantee that they will become senators?

I wonder whether this bill is just a smokescreen and whether the best solution here, as my colleague has said a number of times, is to ask Canadians what they think of the Senate and what they think we should do before we launch into any reform. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have heard my colleague speak to this bill. It is important for the opposition to express its point of view and be heard. I thought it was rather ironic that the hon. Conservative member asked the opposition earlier to propose things and tell the government what it wants, when the government turns around and limits debates. This is not the first time it has done so. It is rather ironic that the government asks us to propose things and then tells us it has heard enough and it is going to do whatever it wants.

Does my colleague believe that the government wants to listen to us when it is limiting debate and introducing unbalanced bills? Every Canadian I have talked to says that this bill is not balanced and it should be amended. The government is not listening to us and it is limiting debates.

[National Defence, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the F-35 procurement process has had so many problems that the Associate Minister of National Defence does not even know how to defend it anymore. Yesterday he said that all acquisitions and procurements currently under way for the Canadian Forces are “holy and decent”. Those were his exact words.

Would the minister have us believe that the F-35s—the fighter jets that seem to have one new problem after another, including safety issues, skyrocketing costs and delivery delays—are a gift from above? How pitiful.

It has become clear that all of the countries that were considering purchasing the F-35 are backing off. Canada is the only one continuing its crusade towards this reckless, irresponsible expenditure.

The government is completely incapable of managing this file and is now hoping for a miracle from up above, instead of coming up with a plan B. There is no evidence that this is the right plan. We must launch a competitive bidding process.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a fairly brief question.

Here are some figures related to the economy. The unemployment rate is 7.6%, which is the highest it has been since the last election. The unemployment rate among young people is 14.5%. The unemployment rate has therefore been on the rise for the past four months. A total of 1.4 million Canadians are currently out of work, and 60,000 full-time jobs have been eliminated since September 2011.

This clearly indicates that the Conservatives' plan is not working at all. The numbers I just mentioned speak for themselves and prove that the Conservatives' plan is not working.

Does the hon. member agree with me on this? Does he also think that the jobs lost at Electro-Motive are the result of a plan that is not working?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question and congratulate her on a very passionate speech that conveys the opinions of the people in her riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

My question pertains to Caterpillar's profits in recent years. In 2011, this company had record profits of $5 billion, an 83% increase over 2010. It is surprising that this company then asked its employees to accept a pay cut or have their jobs shipped to the U.S. It is hard to understand the Conservatives' logic. They give tax breaks to these companies, which then turn around and ask their employees to accept a pay cut or else lose their jobs.

Should we not instead be giving small and medium-sized companies tax breaks because these companies, like the ones in my riding, actually create jobs? I am certain that, in my colleague's riding, the SMEs create the most jobs, not the big companies that end up moving to the U.S. or Asia. I would like to hear what she has to say about this.

[National Sweater Day, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind the House that today, February 9, is World Wildlife Fund Canada's second National Sweater Day. I would therefore like to encourage all members to lower their thermostats and wear their favourite sweaters in order to take action against climate change and work toward a sustainable future.

Last year, over 300 organizations took part in National Sweater Day. Everything is ready so that, this year, many other organizations can join the campaign. I would especially like to recognize WWF-Canada for the important work it is doing to further the environmental movement in Canada.

By rethinking our energy use, we can have a considerable impact on climate change. I would like to share a statistic that I found striking: if every Canadian turned down the thermostat by two degrees Celsius each winter, 2.2 megatonnes of carbon dioxide could be saved every year, which is equivalent to taking 350,000 cars off the road.

So let us put on our sweaters and work together to make the world a better place for our grandchildren.