Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I will be sharing my speaking time.

I am pleased to rise today on this very important issue, which goes to the very heart of our institution, Parliament and the House of Commons. It is fundamentally important that the House debate these issues because, as the Speaker has determined, there may have been a violation of our parliamentary privilege to be able to have all the information before us, and accurate information.

In this instance, the Speaker himself has told us that the information provided to us by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville was incorrect.

Consequently, we, as parliamentarians, did not have all the information necessary to continue our deliberations and vote. A vote has already been held at second reading stage.

Consequently, it is this entire matter that is behind today’s debate. This is extremely important. I believe that the House, through a parliamentary committee, should have the opportunity to examine the facts around the misleading statements. This is not the best place in which to conduct that kind of proceeding or put questions to the member who misled the House. That should be done instead in a parliamentary committee. The committee could ask questions and examine every factor that might have motivated the member for Mississauga—Streetsville to make misleading statements.

I do not see how a member could appear in the House with a speech prepared in advance, or not, and say to himself that he will intentionally give the House of Commons incorrect information.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could do that, but that is what happened in the case of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. He arrived in the House and even said it on two occasions. One may believe that it was a trivial mistake, but when such a gross error is made twice, I do not believe it is the result of a minor language error, as the members opposite often say, as if they were mistaken about a figure, a comma or the name of a committee.

The member did not make a trivial mistake. He said he had witnessed a criminal act, one subject to fines and consequences under the Canada Elections Act. He said so twice, which is what surprises me most. He rose in the House on two occasions, in front of all parliamentarians and in fact all Canadians, because every parliamentarian represents Canadian citizens, to say things that he knew were false. I am not making this up. The Speaker has determined that what was said was false, based on three specific criteria that Speakers have used in the past.

This entire matter should be examined more closely. It is fundamentally important in our democracy and in our institution that we be able to get to the bottom of things. We know that this was not true because the member himself apologized. The question is not whether the information was false, whether it was incorrect, because the member told us that the information was false.

He apologized, thankfully, but that is not enough.

This brings me back to the question I put to the hon. member a few minutes ago. He seemed to suggest that a simple apology could erase all past mistakes. That is not the case, and our justice system is proof of that. If I drive at 160 km/h on the highway and get stopped, I cannot get off scot-free by sincerely apologizing to the police officer and telling him I should not have done that and did not mean to cause any harm. The police officer is not going to let me off without giving me a ticket just because my apologies are very sincere.

It does not work that way, and all members know that. A simple apology cannot solve everything in our society, much less in the House, which symbolizes Canada and our democracy. It is not enough, and that is why we should get to the bottom of this matter and ask the member why he made these statements and whether he got this information from a third party.

These questions, which deserve answers, could lead to a committee report, under the normal process used by our institution. After reviewing the matter, the committee can prepare a report that will be tabled in the House. Then, all the members can read the report and examine it when the time comes to discuss it. Finally, members can vote in the House to determine whether or not the member's breach calls for sanctions.

This process must follow its course, and the next step is the vote that will take place this evening to refer the matter to a parliamentary committee.

I hope members will not show blind partisanship and will not be whipped by their whip when the time comes to vote. It would not be right if, on a question of privilege, the government used its majority and told its members, through its whip, to vote in a certain way.

This is not a government bill but a question of privilege. I hope some members, if not all of them, will support this motion to refer the matter to a committee. It would hurt our institution if such a fundamental question of privilege about a member who deliberately misled the House was settled through a simple vote won by the majority because the government decided to whip its members.

Therefore, I do hope that tonight's vote will be a free vote and that the matter can be referred to a committee. I hope to get the support of all members from all parties in the House.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. However, I disagree with him on one point in particular.

He said that an apology is enough to erase everything someone did in the past and to let that person avoid facing the consequences.

Some people can make mistakes or commit crimes that are punishable in our society. Does he think that if a criminal just apologizes, regardless of the crime he committed, he should be able to avoid facing the consequences?

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech and for the amendment he proposed to the original motion. If the motion is adopted this evening after the vote—and I truly hope that the Conservative members will support us—we must ensure that the meeting is held in public. I look forward to seeing the results.

With that in mind, I would like to hear the member's thoughts on whether we can still trust the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. In the future, this member will speak to other bills and present facts in the House. Can we trust the speeches and the facts that the member will give down the road? Can we still trust this member and what he says, and will we know whether he is telling the truth?

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member who just spoke.

I have a lot of respect for all of my colleagues in the House, including the one we are talking about today. However, now that we know that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville misled the House and gave information that was not true or correct, will the member for Mississauga—Erindale have faith in the information provided by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville the next time he rises in the House?

In the future, will my colleague be inclined to wonder whether what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville says is true, since he could simply come back to the House two days later to say that he is sorry for not telling the truth?

How can we trust this member in the future now that we know he is capable of saying things that turn out not to be true?

[The Budget, February 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague specifically about National Defence's procurement strategy.

In this budget, why has the government decided to defer the $3 billion earmarked for various Canadian Forces procurement projects?

[The Budget, February 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his remarks.

In the September 2013 Speech from the Throne, the government promised to improve railway safety. The mayor of Lac-Mégantic was even in attendance. However, there is no mention of railway safety in the budget. There is no funding for inspections.

Why has the government not decided to invest in railway safety, when it knows that this is a major issue for people in Sherbrooke, the Eastern Townships and all regions of Canada where derailments are more and more frequent?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have only 50 seconds to respond to a very broad question.

The member seems to be saying that I did not talk about the points he raised, but today's motion is not about the actual content of the bill. It is about holding public hearings across Canada. I already made a speech about the content of the bill.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am discussing the subject of the motion we are studying, which is about holding Canada-wide consultations. I spoke about that in my speech because that is the subject of debate today.

I hope to have the support of all my colleagues opposite to pass this NDP motion.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the ultimate goal is to hold consultations from one end of the country to the other, not just in Ottawa. It is a question of speaking with people who have real-life examples and experiences to share. They may be able to add something to the debate.

Here, in Ottawa, we will hear from experts who have studied the elections act, but that is not enough. It is very important to hear from them when we are studying a bill, but it is also very important to hear from people who cannot travel here and who have real-life examples to share. That is impossible if we stay in Ottawa.

When we hold consultations, people are able to hear testimony or to make a presentation when a committee stops in a nearby city. However, that becomes impossible when committees sit only in Ottawa. It is not that easy for people outside Ottawa to add their voices and be heard.

Therefore, it is to the committee's benefit to go to them—that way, we can hear testimony that we surely would not hear if we were to stay here, in the Ottawa bubble.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I am pleased to speak today to the very important motion moved by the NDP. It has come to this with the debate on Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

This involves a law that is vital in a democracy. The Canada Elections Act is the most important law for our democracy. It is considered to be almost constitutional. We must examine the proposed changes with the greatest respect for democracy and Parliament, because the latter is responsible for this act.

The act was amended in the past. However, this is the first time, if my memory serves me well, that a government wants to amend it in such a cavalier manner. The government has not even bothered to consult or approach the other parties in this House, even though the other political parties participate in all elections and the democratic process.

Not only have the Conservatives failed to consult the parties, but they are also introducing legislation that will make draconian changes to the Canada Elections Act. I will not go into the details of the bill because I have already done so at debate on second reading.

However, I do not think that this is how the government should have gone about changing the Canada Elections Act. From the outset, the government has been trying to move forward with this as quickly as possible. Why? The reason is simple. The government is trying to hide things. The bill contains things that the Conservatives do not want to spend a lot of time talking about.

In fact, the government wants to move on to something else as quickly as possible, as is the case with most of the bills it introduces. The government tries to expedite the process in order to ensure that bills are passed very quickly before the public has time to realize what is happening. Once the Canada Elections Act has been amended, there will be no going back, unless we want to go through the lengthy process of amending the law again.

I am clearly very concerned about this issue. The bill makes significant changes that could affect certain segments of the population, namely young people. We have heard this during today's debate and at other times as well.

In Sherbrooke, there are two universities, one of which is located in my riding. There are also a number of colleges and CEGEPs. I therefore feel quite strongly about this issue.

As an MP, it is my duty to represent the interests of the people of Sherbrooke when it comes to this bill and today's motion, which deals specifically with consultations.

The committee should hold consultations across Canada, including in the Eastern Townships and Sherbrooke, which are areas that could be affected by this bill. It is the committee's duty to do so.

We are often asked why the House should tell a committee what it needs to do. I think the reason is quite simple: all the resources available to the committee have already been exhausted. The request has already been made and all the possibilities have been exhausted. As the chair of a committee, I can attest that the committee will continue to control its own destiny and agenda, no matter what happens.

If the House votes in favour of this motion, that would put pressure on the members of the committee in question. They would practically be forced to move forward and abide by the decision of the House as a whole.

I think that is what it has come to because we have already exhausted all the other avenues with the requests made in committee that were rejected by the Conservatives. We hope that this time, because all MPs will vote, some from across the way will see the light and vote with us on this motion that we have moved. We hope to be able to hold the consultations that we have been calling for since the bill was introduced, so that we can go directly to the people this affects. I think that is the key in all this.

I think this is the least we can do, given how important this law is for our democracy and how much respect we have for it. This has been done in a number of other files, for a number of other bills. Consultations have been held across Canada for various things. Earlier, other members gave examples of bills that were before parliamentary committees. Those committees decided to travel and hold consultations on those various bills.

Today, we have a bill to change the Elections Act, and the government is refusing to hold any consultations and talk to Canadians about this. It makes us wonder how important the Canada Elections Act is to the government when it cannot accept a request as simple as holding consultations like the ones that have been held for many other bills in the past.

It makes us wonder what the Conservatives are afraid of. That is the question that comes to my mind when I see the Conservatives opposing the idea of talking to Canadians. They must be afraid of something. We already heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say in committee that it would be a circus, a ridiculous spectacle. I do not remember his exact words, but he seemed to be ridiculing the idea of consulting Canadians. The parliamentary secretary seemed to be saying that it was ridiculous, there was no point and we should not consult Canadians.

We completely disagree. I think that we would see the complete opposite. It would be even more helpful for the committee members who will study the bill. After several consultation sessions, the committee members would be able to go through the bill clause by clause, taking into account what they heard in the various communities across Canada, whether it was on aboriginal reserves—which we think will be significantly affected—on university campuses or in seniors' homes. These are examples of places the committee could visit to make a better study of this bill.

I think this bill has a number of shortcomings, and I think that consultation is the best way to make improvements. I may be naive, but even after three years here, I have faith that it is possible to improve this bill. Maybe I am kidding myself, but I still think it is possible.

The best way to improve the bill is to consult the people who will be affected by the changes to the Canada Elections Act. This may involve some amendments to the bill, because we will truly know what kind of impact these changes will have and how we can improve the bill. I hope that will be possible.

I ask my colleagues in all parties to support this motion to consult all Canadians across the country.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, February 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech here today. He is always concerned about the rights and well-being of aboriginal people, as we have seen in recent years with one of the communities located in his riding.

In the member's opinion, how important are consultations with first nations when decisions are being made that might affect their lands? How important is that in the process the government is supposed to follow when coming up with bills or new programs that could affect first nations? How important are consultations with first nations?