Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise today even though I only have three minutes. I will try to be as concise as possible and speak clearly during the time I have today.

This bill is of interest to me and must surely interest all my colleagues, even though we have not heard many members from other parties speak to this issue today.

In all my discussions, the issue of protecting workers comes up often. This is an important issue for me and, I am sure, for the people of Sherbrooke as well. The protection of workers will always be a priority.

My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord talked about the reality of offshore workers. There are many difficult aspects to this work, because the conditions are unbelievably tough. They are not the kind of conditions we have on dry land. Conditions are extremely dangerous in offshore areas, which are located hundreds of kilometres from shore.

Simply getting to an oil platform is a difficult, perilous undertaking. Then, once you are on the platform, it is even more dangerous, not only because of the activities that go on there, but also because of weather conditions.

A bill like the one we are discussing here today is therefore crucial. Overall, it is rather positive, despite a few shortcomings. My colleagues have already talked about them.

This bill is extremely important. I must say, it is the result of excellent work that was done by various provinces. They managed to find some common ground in order to come up with this bill, although it was a long time coming. Indeed, the work began in 2001, and it was not until 2014 that it finally came to fruition. The process was extremely long. I understand that discussions with the provinces are not always easy and that reaching an agreement can be tough, especially when several provinces are involved. It took 13 years to finalize such a bill. That is a little much. I am happy to see that it is such a priority for the government—a priority in the sense that we are debating it here today.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech this afternoon. I have a general question for her that is related to what we are talking about today. What is the NDP's record when it comes to protecting workers? I am not just talking about offshore workers, but all workers. What is the NDP's record on protecting workers?

[Air Transportation, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, 14 mayors in my region have had enough of the Minister of Transport's inaction on the Sherbrooke airport file.

They wrote to her to ask for security facilities at the Sherbrooke airport, which would stimulate economic development in my region by creating tens of millions of dollars in economic spinoffs.

Unfortunately, she said no to all 14 elected officials in the region. There is a consensus and just one person is missing: the Minister of Transport.

Why does she want to hinder Sherbrooke's economic development? Why is she abandoning Sherbrooke?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Sherbrooke regional office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented; (g) what is the complete list of meetings between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (h) what is the complete list of meetings between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; (i) what is the complete list of meetings between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year; (j) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices; (k) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (l) in which month of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices implemented; (m) what is the complete list of phone communications between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (n) what is the complete list of phone communications between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; (o) what is the complete list of phone communications between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year; (p) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices; (q) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (r) in which month of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices implemented; (s) what is the complete list of email communications between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (t) what is the complete list of email communications between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; and (u) what is the complete list of email communications between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to government spending in the federal electoral district of Sherbrooke: what is the total amount of spending since fiscal year 2010 up to and including the current fiscal year to date, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to language courses taken by ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries outside of Canada between January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2013, for each ot these courses: (a) in what establishment, city and country did each take place; (b) what were the dates for each; (c) who took each; (d) how much did each cost; and (e) what language was being taught in each?

[Committees of the House, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on the supplementary estimates (C) 2013-14.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised to hear talk of partisanship when the Speaker himself gave the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley the opportunity to introduce a motion, because he had found that there had been a prima facie breach of privilege. There is no partisanship here. This is just regular procedure.

That raises another question that I would like to ask the Conservative member, namely, whether there will be any partisanship on his side during this evening’s vote, and whether the vote will be a party vote or a whipped vote.

I wonder whether he can provide us with that information, and whether his party will require all its members to vote the same way this evening.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Québec for her question.

It is the general attitude of the Conservatives. They seem to think that they can come out of any scandal unscathed and that Canadians will not notice. Our role as the opposition is to hold the Conservatives to account and to ensure that those in power are accountable to the people.

All too often, the Conservatives believe that it can all be swept under the carpet, that they can move on to something else and that everyone will forget. However, the opposition will certainly not forget. We will not forget all these scandals and this Conservative deception.

I said at the beginning that I would be sharing my time. I therefore yield my place to the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher for his comments and his question.

Indeed, we need to look at the context in which these statements were made. We were debating an electoral reform bill, which, according to the minister responsible for the bill, appears to be based on speculation or rumours.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville made some unfounded and completely false statements to justify the bill and the measures that were going to be implemented to address a problem. Now we see that the problem this member raised did not even exist. The government is trying to justify a bill and regulations with a situation that does not even exist.

That is the context in which the statements were made. It is even more surprising and sad for the House that members are making such statements in a context like that and that the minister seems to be doing the same thing.

The only facts he came come up with to support his bill are from an Infoman report. Although I have a lot of respect for that TV show, I do not think it should be used as the sole source of information for creating bills and amending federal laws.