Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Government Orders, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. Her speech was excellent.

I would also like to remind you that all hon. members are subject to the same rules. Whether we are talking about the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering, Yukon, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lévis—Bellechasse, Kitchener—Waterloo or Don Valley West, we are all subject to the same rules, which say that we must not travel for partisan purposes.

For instance, as a member of Parliament, I would not be able to travel at taxpayers' expense for the general meeting of a constituency association.

Why do the rules that apply to senators allow them to travel for partisan purposes when MPs are not allowed to do so?

This motion asks that the rules be the same. My hope is that the government will support it so that MPs and senators will be subject to the same rules.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a question to the Conservative member from Quebec. Conservative members from Quebec are a rare breed. They are almost an endangered species.

This brings me to Bill C-7, which no longer exists because it died on the order paper due to prorogation. This bill was presented by the government, which requested a reference to the Supreme Court. As the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands explained, the bill provided that the provinces could hold elections at their own expense. Then, it would be up to the Prime Minister to decide whether or not to appoint the elected individuals.

If, for example, there were three vacancies in Quebec and five individuals were elected, it would ultimately be up to the Prime Minister to choose who would get a seat. This is because the government decided to put forward a piece of legislation that did not require any change to the Constitution.

That is what the government did. This was a rather strange approach designed to circumvent the Constitution, to leave it be so as not to trigger a debate on the issue. The Conservatives designed a piece of legislation that bypassed the Constitution by giving the Prime Minister the prerogative to select senators.

How does this process allow Canadians to have a greater say in Senate appointments if the Conservatives still give the Prime Minister the power to accept or reject an individual? An individual can be elected, but the Prime Minister does not have to appoint him. How does this give power to citizens?

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, which served as a reminder of the facts about a number of senators. The majority of them are Conservatives, but there were also some Liberals who broke the rules.

Of course, some senators have merit. They have had distinguished careers and played by the rules, but the majority of them are partisan through and through, if I may say it that way. Some are defeated candidates, like the candidate from the Quebec City region who was once an MP. The voters said no, they did not want her to represent the Quebec City region. Days later, the Prime Minister said that she would become a senator. It is clear that partisanship in the Senate is about as bad as it gets.

Everyone knows our position, and my colleague spoke about it as well. We believe in abolition. Why, then, is it important to take meaningful measures quickly to ensure accountability and reduce partisanship in the Senate as much as possible?

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask a question of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who finished his speech by saying that the situation in the Senate is an embarrassment to all members of Parliament and that we have to get to the bottom of this.

This leads me to my question. Why did that same member of Parliament earn the distinction yesterday of providing the best “non-answer” to a question? One journalist described the hon. member's answer in question period yesterday as the most complete non-answer in the history of QP.

The hon. member just told us that we have to get to the bottom of this situation that is an embarrassment to all members of Parliament. That is the same member of Parliament who changes the subject every day in the House of Commons when we ask questions in order to get to the bottom of this situation. That is the same member of Parliament who diverts the attention of Canadians, who are also looking for answers.

I wonder why he is unable to give us answers when we ask him questions in order to get to the bottom of this situation.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which reminds us of certain important facts. The upper chamber, the Senate, is supposed to be a chamber that scrutinizes bills passed by the House of Commons, with the aim of offsetting the partisanship that can exist in the House.

Our motion is therefore very reasonable, in that it ensures that senators will be obliged to stop participating in purely partisan activities such as caucus meetings. This is a very reasonable way to prevent excessive partisanship. The main purpose of a caucus is to bring the party together to discuss its position and then emerge with the party’s points of argument.

I would like to know if my colleague agrees that these measures, which are applicable immediately—it is important to note—are quite reasonable. It is important that the members of the House of Commons adopt these measures in the hours ahead.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague a question. He seemed to get his facts mixed up during his speech. I will also reiterate what my colleague from Toronto—Danforth said.

According to the motion as it stands now, senators would no longer have party affiliations. It is therefore not unconstitutional to ask them not to sit in a caucus, since the motion proposes to eliminate all partisanship among senators. If they are not partisan, they can create a non-partisan caucus. However, we do not think that they should belong to a partisan caucus, since we do not want them to be partisan. Therefore, constitutionality is not an issue.

The member claimed that our desire to abolish the Senate came about in recent years, but that is completely untrue. We have been calling for the abolition of the Senate for over 50 years. This is not some revelation we had in response to the Senate scandals.

This brings me to my question. I would like to know whether the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville agrees with us or whether he supports all senators travelling to participate in partisan activities.

Does the member agree that senators—both Liberals and Conservatives—should travel around the country to campaign during elections? Does he agree with this level of partisanship and does he agree that senators should be allowed to use taxpayer money to participate in partisan activities?

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague for his speech. He explained in large part the government's position on the Senate.

It is important to remember why the Senate was created and how the Fathers of Confederation initially envisioned it. It was supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought. That is not the case today. The upper chamber is just as partisan as the House of Commons, if not more so.

I heard my colleague complaining about the partisan nature of the House of Commons and the role of the party system. The second chamber, the upper chamber, was in fact created to offset the partisanship in the House of Commons. I wonder if the government thinks that an elected upper chamber—which is what it is seeking and will argue in favour of in court in November—would solve the problem of partisanship. After all, if senators are elected, they will still have a political allegiance. This will not solve the partisanship problem that we take issue with when the upper chamber was supposed to function as a chamber of sober second thought.

Having elected senators will not achieve that and, what is more, it will create a dysfunctional chemistry between the two chambers. We will have two elected chambers with no clear sense of which is best positioned to draft bills. That is a whole other matter.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate on that.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question about innovation. In fact, Sherbrooke is fertile ground for innovation.

Every time I speak about employment or the economy, I always come back to the fact that it is important for the government to invest in innovation in order to help companies in Sherbrooke and across Canada innovate and remain competitive in the global market. In the manufacturing sector, for example, these companies must compete in increasingly competitive global markets.

The only way to succeed is to be innovative and offer products that are not available elsewhere. This keeps jobs in Canada and even creates new jobs.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, which reminds me about how I said at the beginning of my speech that, most of the time, the government is playing with the numbers when it makes comparisons between 2006 and 2013.

The hon. member just mentioned that, since 2006, there has been a net increase in border guards. However, the facts show that there will be fewer employees in 2013 than there were in 2012. If we compare those figures to the ones for 2006—seven years ago—of course there could have been a net increase. The fact remains that there has been a net decrease in the number of employees from 2012 to 2013. It is all well and good for the government to play around with the numbers, but the facts are clear: there will be fewer resources in 2013.

Maybe there is a more effective way of doing things, and indeed I hope the government is trying to be effective. When it comes to taxpayers' money, the most important thing is to use it as effectively as possible so that as little as possible is wasted. However, we should not play around with the numbers too much, as the Conservatives tend to do when comparing themselves to the Liberals.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-56, on behalf of my riding of Sherbrooke.

I have a vested interest in this issue because the Sherbrooke area in the Eastern Townships is very close to the border. This is therefore very important to me and concerns me deeply. I am sure that my colleague from Compton—Stanstead, who is now listening and probably thinking along the same lines, shares my interest and concerns. Indeed, the Minister of Immigration recently visited Stanstead, as a result of reports of the porous border. This happened against a backdrop of recent revelations and surprises about illegal immigrants.

However, it is also true, with regard to counterfeit goods, that the easier it is for dishonest people or criminals to cross our borders, the more our country suffers.

As the member for Sherbrooke, I am understandably very interested in our borders, given their proximity. Indeed, my riding is less than 30 minutes away from the U.S.

By the way, I would like to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard, who has worked on this file and continues to do so every day. She is passionate about this issue and about her work. I am convinced she will represent our views when the time comes, when the bill is being studied in more detail in committee.

We hope that that will happen soon because the government is addressing this at the last minute, as was mentioned earlier. It seems to be at the bottom of their list of priorities at the tail end of this parliamentary session. It is hard to believe the government when it says that this is a priority. We have been waiting for this bill for a long time. It was introduced on March 1, 2013. Today, the government is saying that it is a priority, just as the session is coming to a close. So much for good intentions and good faith.

We will be supporting the bill at second reading. It is common knowledge that this bill has been anticipated and talked about for years now. I think the discussions go back to 2007. There have also been talks with the United States, which is an important player in the fight against counterfeit goods. The United States is essential to our country because it is our major trading partner.

It is important for Canadian businesses and consumers that we fight counterfeiting, particularly when counterfeit goods can put Canadians' health and safety at risk. It is a rather important point that I also mentioned earlier when I asked the member for Halifax West a question.

The member mentioned that auto parts could sometimes be counterfeit. That clearly endangers the lives of some Canadians who go to the local garage to have their car fixed. They might wind up with counterfeit parts that are not up to Canadian standards. The brakes or airbags might not be up to Canadian standards.

This is a very important issue in the sense that it could endanger the safety and lives of Canadians when they think they are using a product that complies with current standards. However, they might eventually realize they are using a counterfeit product, meaning that some malicious person tried to copy an existing product. Those are not necessarily the safest of products.

There is also the matter of resources. I talked about that this evening during this debate on Bill C-56. I also mentioned it in my questions to my colleagues. I talked about the lack of resources at the Canada Border Services Agency.

The minister and most of the members who have spoken try to play with the numbers and say that since 2005, the total budget has increased, that it will decrease relative to 2012, but that in fact, since 2005, it has increased. They are playing with the numbers. However, the truth is that less money will be available for the agency in 2013. That is a number that is easy to come up with.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism keeps saying that the budget has increased relative to 2005, but the reality is that the agency will have less money than it did last year. That is a budget cut. There are no two ways about it.

The government often likes to compare its spending to that of the Liberal government in 2005. It says this is an increase. However, the increase in funding allocated to the departments in question is below the level of inflation since 2005. Any administrator knows that if costs increase and the budget does not keep pace with the increase in costs, then this can be considered a budget cut. It is a simple calculation that seems to escape the government when it talks about increases from the time the Liberals were in power to now.

That is another debate we could have in the wake of the Conservatives' budget cuts. This bill puts additional responsibilities on border services officers. They are being asked to take on more responsibility and be on the lookout for counterfeiting, but they are not being given the resources they need. That point has been raised by a number of people since Bill C-56 was introduced.

The bill creates two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act. These offences have to do with the possession or export of infringing copies. The bill also creates offences for selling or offering for sale any counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. The bill also prohibits the importation or exportation of infringing copies or counterfeit goods and balances out this ban with two exceptions.

These two exceptions are important. The first has to do with personal use, so copies that are in an individual's possession or baggage. The second has to do with copies that are in transit control. If I have the time, I will discuss the notion of transit control later on.

The bill is truly focused on fighting crime. It is often criminal groups that choose to use counterfeit goods in order to make money. Organized crime groups are often the ones that are trading in counterfeit goods. This bill will does not directly target average people who may inadvertently be in possession of or have purchased counterfeit goods.

The bill also gives border officials new powers that authorize them to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods. That is an important policy change, since up until now, border officials required copyright holders to first get a court order before they would seize infringing copies or counterfeit goods. This request to grant these powers to officers has been discussed since 2007, I believe.

In conclusion, I want to say that it is unfortunate that this bill assigns new responsibilities but does not provide any resources to carry them out. We are asking the officers to do more with less. The NDP thinks that is unacceptable. If you ask someone to take on added responsibilities, you have to give them the resources to do so.