Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Petitions, May 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from 30 or so people from Sherbrooke who oppose Bill C-30. They are asking that Bill C-30, which would make it possible to spy on Internet users without a warrant, not be passed.

Such access to the personal information of Internet users violates the rights and freedoms guaranteed by section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and unfairly treats all law-abiding Internet users like criminals. These people are opposed to Bill C-30. I have the honour to present their opinions here today.

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, concerning the Main Estimates 2012-2013: Votes 40 and 45 under Justice, 15 and 20 under Parliament and 45 under Treasury Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, May 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago today, Canadians changed the face of Canadian politics forever. Of course there was the NDP's unprecedented rise to official opposition status, but there was also a change in mentality that was even more impressive.

Millions of Canadians decided to turn their backs on cynicism and the old way of doing politics. They did what they needed to do to make their voices heard. They said yes to hope and optimism.

A year ago today, millions of new voices flooded into the political landscape, voices that will resonate for decades to come, voices that are younger and more representative of the diversity of our regions, our cities, our provinces and our country.

I wish everyone a happy anniversary. Just three years to go before we replace this tired government.

[Petitions, April 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, today I have the honour to present a petition signed by 1,100 people from Sherbrooke who are rallying behind a man who is being deported tomorrow morning. They are calling on us to proclaim loud and clear our complete disagreement with and utter disbelief over the government's decision to deport Jorge Alberto Castro, who has been living in Canada for three and a half years.

I hope this further encourages the Minister of Immigration to change his decision. Everyone in Sherbrooke is rallying behind this resident in order to have him stay here. I hope this will have an impact.

[Interim Supply, March 14th, 2012]

Madam Chair, can the President of the Treasury Board confirm to members of the House that the bill is in its usual form?

[Supplementary Estimates (C), 2011-12, March 14th, 2012]

Madam Chair, can the President of the Treasury Board confirm to members of the House that the bill is in its usual form?

[Protecting Air Service Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I put a question to one of the hon. members opposite. I would like to put the same question again to the hon. member from the Liberal Party, the third party in the House.

Once more, the government is setting up two categories of people in Canada: Air Canada employees and other employees. At the moment, it is as if Air Canada employees do not have all the same rights as other Canadians. With this bill, the government is taking away all those rights and placing them below those enjoyed by other Canadians.

I wonder if he shares my view that, in fact, the government's bill is creating two categories of Canadians who are now being set against each other.

[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?