Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[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.

[Air 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?

[Business of Supply, 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?