Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[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.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 8th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask the hon. member a question.

In our opinion, the bill is not at all balanced, as the Conservatives have been claiming in a number of their speeches. Creators will lose millions of dollars. It is true. It has been proven. I would like to hear a little bit more of what the hon. member has to say about this. We know that artists are among the lowest paid workers in Canada. On average, they earn $12,900 a year.

Can the hon. member confirm today, here in this House, that, once this bill is passed, artists will not lose a single penny and that they will receive as much income as before? I would like him to provide some reassurance in this regard.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for his speech and ask him a question. Does he really believe that this bill will ensure a secure retirement for more Canadians than today? People will be investing money in unstable financial markets. Will Bill C-25 give these people a secure retirement? After their careers, will they have a stable income for the rest of their lives like they do with the Canada pension plan? Or, does this plan merely fool Canadians into contributing to a pension plan that is not really a pension plan? In my opinion, this is more of a savings plan and it will not ensure that these people enjoy a secure retirement at the end of their careers. I would like the hon. member to comment on this.

[The Environment, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder the minister is in Durban advancing the agenda of his big old friends. That is who he spends his time with. He has met with oil lobbyists almost three times more than he has met with environmental groups, and this is for a Minister of the Environment.

Why is it no surprise that, after all these meetings with oil companies, his government still broke its promise to regulate emissions from the oil sands this year?