Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, my NDP colleague raised a good point at the end of his response after he made his speech. He talked about the importance of the federal government's role in this issue. What I love about the federal government is that the provinces can have their own programs within their jurisdictions. But the federal government can play a big role. It can be a leader on this issue and enable the provinces to better develop their programs.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the role the federal government could play in the issue we are talking about today.

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I would like to follow up a little on the question my colleague asked.

We know that people who have had homosexual relations are discriminated against when it comes to giving blood. I was gratified by my colleague’s comment. However, I did not think that the hon. member's reply was very clear as to her position on this subject.

Will homosexual individuals who have had homosexual relations in the previous five years continue to be discriminated against? Is she considering having a plan for the future so these people can be on an equal footing with others?

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my NDP colleague. He talked about the word “reasonable” a number of times. He said that this word is often used in court rulings. When used outside a legal context, the word “reasonable” is rather vague. Case law gives us a somewhat better idea of its meaning.

The term “reasonable” is used in section 34. This section deals with self-defence and sets out the factors that a court may consider in paragraphs (a) through (h). In the section dealing with defence of property, this term is used only in paragraph (d), which states, “the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.”

Could the term “reasonable” be defined a bit more clearly in the section on defence of property?

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the answer I got to my earlier question to the Minister of State for Finance was quite interesting.

I asked him if there were any sources of support, other than his friends, that would argue for this bill. He replied that the studies were his own personal experience. Once again, I would ask him if there really have been studies that have determined that it would be profitable for all farmers. If there are, and I strongly doubt it, I would like the hon. member to tell us about them, to prove that this bill and this change in our society will be profitable for all Canadians and all western farmers.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Finance.

Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture was asked whether there were any studies to back their initiatives and their bill. The same question was asked about other bills, and the Conservatives have failed to produce any studies to back their plans a number of times now. Often they tell us that their constituents said this or that, or that they met someone who told them this or that, so they created a bill and are moving ahead with it.

I would like to know whether the Minister of State for Finance has any studies to back this initiative and whether there is anything to truly prove that this will be beneficial to western Canadian farmers.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I found it funny that, in the last three minutes of her speech, she talked about farmers having the right to choose what to do with their grain, even though this government is not even allowing them to decide what to do with the Canadian Wheat Board. So, that is the first question. Do farmers not have the right to decide whether to keep or abolish this board? The government made that decision without consulting them.

Does she plan to hold a referendum to really know, once and for all, what farmers want to do with the board and with their grain?

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers, November 23rd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about another time allocation motion introduced by the Conservative government.

In the past, the Conservatives were very angry when the Liberals did the same thing. However, now that they are in power, the Conservatives are doing it just as much as the Liberals did before them. I would like to quote the current Prime Minister who, at that time, said:

I fear the longer I am here the reason it does some of this is it really ultimately wants to rush committee stage of these bills.

Committee stage is where the public and affected interests get to express their views on the bill to indicate where amendments should be made and where parliamentarians and other expert witnesses are able to go over the clause by clause of a bill to suggest...amendments.

That is what we have been wanting to do for a long time, and I think it is a shame that the government is once again trying to move things too quickly. We agree that Parliament must act but the members who represent their ridings must also be given time to speak and make suggestions.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask a government member a question, because this is an important one that we often forget to ask. It has to do with something that all Canadians have a right to know: the cost of dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board. Many numbers have been tossed around, but I think a government member like him should be able to tell us exactly how much it will cost. Canadians have a right to know that information in order to decide if they agree with the government's position.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. She just spoke about the fact that producers have a right to organize and said that in unity, there is strength. Will the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board not deal a blow to small producers, who benefited from a single desk? Does the member think that small producers will benefit from the government's decision?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 18th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, we, too, are in favour of as much transparency as possible at the CBC, but being accountable does not mean ignoring political and legal processes. The actions of the member for Peterborough were illegitimate and illegal.

This precedent is contrary to our institutions and to the separation of powers. The government is setting itself above the constitutional role of the House. The Canadian Constitution also applies to the Conservative caucus. Will it respect the separation of legislative and judicial powers?