Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague another question.

In her speech, she mentioned companies' insurance coverage. She gave the example of Lac-Mégantic, which pertains to rail transportation, but the same principle could be applied to marine transportation.

Do companies have the insurance they need to clean up messes such as oil spills, which can cause considerable and devastating damage? How important is it for these companies to have a fair bit of insurance to deal with damage related to the quantity and the hazardous nature of the products being shipped?

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which was well researched as usual.

The bill indicates that organizations must be able to respond to a spill of 10,000 tonnes, but we know that most tankers carry much more oil than that. Therefore, that amount may not be enough. One association even said that the best figure would be 50,000 tonnes.

Could the member tell me if 10,000 tonnes is adequate for the current movement of oil products?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. I would like to ask my colleague a question, and I congratulate her on her appointment to cabinet.

I am not sure that, when she was dreaming of becoming a minister, she thought that the first thing she would do as a minister in the House of Commons would be to impose a time allocation motion to limit debate. The logic is rather fascinating because she is telling us that we do not want to debate the bill, when all we really want is to have more time to debate it. They are the ones telling us that they want less time to debate this bill.

We, on this side of the House, are the ones who are truly interested in studying and debating this bill. They, on the other hand, want to spend less time on it and deal with it as quickly as possible. They are quite wrong in saying that we do not want to debate the bill. It is quite the opposite. We want more time to debate this bill, whereas she wants less time for the debate. I am asking her why.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for LaSalle—Émard for her speech and for having mentioned growing up near the Bécancour River. I know she is very interested in environmental issues.

Earlier, I asked my colleague about whether or not companies should be better equipped and have the highest possible level of liability in case of very serious accidents that can impact our ecosystem for decades and centuries to come.

Should the companies that deal with the transportation of hazardous materials be responsible for their actions in case of an accident? Should they have sufficient insurance to pay for cleanup costs? At present, unfortunately, it is the public that has to foot the bill because companies are not adequately covered. What does she—

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his passionate speech. I work on a regular basis with my colleague from Compton—Stanstead, whose riding is next to mine. I know that he is always very concerned about the environment. In my view, it is one of the most important issues not only for my generation, but for everyone.

My colleague drew a parallel between the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and the transportation of goods by sea or rail by certain companies and which may be just as dangerous. This huge bill tackles this issue in part by requiring that companies pay compensation for damages, as in Lac-Mégantic. This municipality is currently having problems with the main company that caused the damage and that should help to pay for the reconstruction.

Does my colleague think that in the event of accidents it is up to the public to pay for reconstruction or should the companies shoulder their responsibilities?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his speech. It was excellent, as always, and full of rather serious observations.

I wanted to ask him if the Conservatives' approach since they were elected—that is, introducing budget implementation bills up to 400 pages long—could result in the kinds of mistakes we saw in the last budget implementation bill. We noted a mistake in the taxation of caisses populaires and credit unions.

Can he comment on the problems that can be caused by such long bills, when we have so little time to examine them? In the end, we realize that they can contain some rather glaring errors.

[Transportation, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in June, Transport Canada refused to grant Sherbrooke's airport facilities the necessary security screening services.

This would have helped the airport conclude an agreement with a national airline. This designation was a major condition for securing three daily flights from Sherbrooke.

Unfortunately, Transport Canada denied that request. We are talking about the economic development of our region. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable has even offered his help on this.

I want to know if the Minister of Transport will review this file quickly.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-4.

Earlier, when I asked the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques a question, I wanted to know whether the process behind all this was flawed. There was a mistake in another budget implementation bill, and it had major repercussions on credit unions such as the Caisses Desjardins in Quebec. That mistake was discovered after the bill was passed by Parliament, at which point the situation had to be corrected.

I wonder whether my colleague can assure us today that in this 308-page bill there will not be similar mistakes that fly under the radar because the process is too quick for studying such lengthy bills.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague and I am pleased to ask him a question. His speeches are often well balanced and I am sure his answer will be no exception.

Bill C-4 contains various measures. Why did the government choose to include provisions on the Supreme Court, for instance, in the budget implementation bill? Can he explain the link between these provisions and his government's budgetary measures that he boasted about throughout his speech? He boasted about his government's job creation record. We have heard all about that.

Can he make the connection between that and the various provisions that have nothing to do with a budget? Can he explain what prompted his government to make these choices?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his excellent speech and the expertise he provided on the topic studied by the Standing Committee on Finance. I am sure that in committee he will be able to go head-to-head with the Conservatives and try to improve the bill, even though it is 300 pages long. The bill was introduced this week and a time allocation motion has already been moved. They want to talk about the bill as little as possible in the House.

Does the hon. member feel that the time available to study the bill is sufficient? Will we be able to properly fulfill the parliamentary duties granted us by voters in ridings across the country?