Debates of Oct. 8th, 2024

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely glad to speak to this very important motion on shoreline erosion along the St. Lawrence River. Quebeckers and Montrealers have a very strong connection to the St. Lawrence River. It is a huge part of Quebec's identity, and we are attached to the river and all its tributaries, all the rivers that flow into this very large and beautiful river. I am from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, so the Richelieu River was obviously part of my childhood and my teen years. The Richelieu and other rivers feed into the St. Lawrence River.

My colleague from Victoria pointed out that I introduced a private member's bill to recognize the St. Lawrence River as a natural entity with legal status. The goal is to better protect it and enhance our ability to protect the environment, the ecosystems and the biodiversity connected to such a massive entity.

I just want to mention that I am a map aficionado. I love maps. I am a big fan of geography, and I recently noticed that, if we take the St. Lawrence River and superimpose it over Europe, placing the head of Lake Superior over the French city of Brest in Brittany, the beginning of the gulf would end up in Warsaw, Poland. That illustrates the considerable extent of what we are talking about today. Its length would cover almost all of western Europe, excluding Russia.

It is really important that we have this discussion to see how we can protect shorelines, banks, species, and ecosystems at risk. Multiple groups are concerned about the threats facing certain species, including the copper redhorse. Port expansion projects like the one in Contrecoeur could harm locations of strategic importance to the species' reproduction. This study is important not only for economic reasons, but also for biological reasons, including ecosystem protection. Personally, I am very pleased to participate in this debate.

As I said, I introduced a private member's bill to give legal status to the St. Lawrence River. Given today's climate, I consider it all the more important precisely because of climate change. While preparing this bill, I had the opportunity to visit, travel around and meet with stakeholders in the northern and southern regions of the river. I clearly remember that people in the Lower St. Lawrence told me that Highway 132 was being threatened by shoreline erosion that is steadily eating away at the road year after year, and that Highway 132 might have to be moved at some point. If Highway 132 has to be moved because of the increasingly large waves hitting the banks of the St. Lawrence, or because of higher water levels or increased marine traffic, it just shows the impact that climate change can have on quality of life and regional development.

It is important to look at the situation from a broad, holistic point of view. People on the ground told me that this was very important to them, because it also means that some residents will have to move and leave their homes. It is a whole restructuring and redevelopment of the entire highway, along with certain towns and cities.

The bill I introduced is a novel idea. This is the first time in North America that a bill has been introduced to give legal status to a natural entity. This is a new idea in North America, but it has already happened other places in the world. In Central America, South America and Spain, for example, certain natural entities such as lakes and ponds have been given legal status.

The constitutions of some Central American states, as well as Ecuador, recognize that nature can have rights. I think we need to consider that here as well. The federal government needs to be able to work in a way that recognizes the value of the environment. It must also be able to work with Quebec and the municipalities, as well as first nations, to protect the banks of the St. Lawrence River, its ecosystems and the species that live there. That is extremely important.

The bill I introduced about the St. Lawrence also talks a lot about reconciliation and the need to think of the first nations and the indigenous peoples as guardians of our ecosystems, the environment and the St. Lawrence River and its tributaries. The bill also seeks to set up an oversight committee that would consist of 11 people appointed by the governments of Quebec and Ontario, and also by the Quebec's and Ontario's assemblies of first nations. The goal would be to monitor the St. Lawrence and have the capacity to act when necessary.

The bill would not only recognize the St. Lawrence as a legal entity and provide for an oversight committee, but it would also give us the ability to represent the river in court. This would allow for lawyers to be hired to argue on behalf of the river, just as people can argue on behalf of a company, a municipality, their family or themselves. It is a novel concept. Their case could truly be argued during a consultation or before a tribunal, by having someone say, I am representing the interests of the St. Lawrence River. The mandate would be conferred by the oversight committee that would be made up of five parts, because there would also be representatives from environmental groups who would defend the St. Lawrence River.

This is extremely important if we want to be able to guarantee future generations a healthy river that is full of life, where we have preserved the ecosystems, species and biodiversity for generations to come. It is also extremely important to look at this from an economic development perspective to ensure that any developments at the port of Quebec, the port of Montreal or the port of Montreal at Contrecoeur are done in a way that respects the river system as a whole.

The Montreal airport is not a very good example of harmonious land use. That area is home to an important endangered species, the monarch butterfly.

I think my time is up, so I will have to end there.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

Does he think it is an issue that Quebec and the other provinces have no authority over river, sea, air and rail routes that are not located entirely within their borders? For example, in 2014, riverside municipalities were distraught when the Harper government changed the allowable breadth for supertankers from 32 to 44 metres, if I am not mistaken. They were in a panic, but there was nothing they could do about it. Ottawa could do as it pleased.

In the end, all they could do was complain. There was not much else that could be done. In my colleague's opinion, is this a problem?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.

As far as river areas, rivers and the St. Lawrence are concerned, it is actually somewhat complicated. It is a bit complicated. For example, the surface of the water, what is under the water, the shoreline and the animal species that live there all fall under different jurisdictions. It is rather difficult to keep track. I quite agree with my colleague that we should simplify things. Right now, with the municipalities, the province, the Quebec government and the federal government sharing jurisdictions, it is really complicated and no one can really figure it out.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague reminded us of the proposal he made, as a member of Parliament, regarding the management of the St. Lawrence River. As we all know, this river is very important to our economy, but above all, it is important to our identity as Quebeckers. The St. Lawrence River is not only our main transportation route, but it has also played an important role in our our history.

My question is this: This government has been in power for nine years. We know that the NDP has helped and supported this government over the past three years. Is the member disappointed to see that, rather than improving, the situation has actually deteriorated over the past nine years? I would invite him to answer that question. If he prefers, he can say what he wanted to say about the monarch butterfly and the Dorval airport.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for asking such a good question.

The Liberals' inaction when it comes to defending the monarch butterfly at the Montreal airport is obvious. This Liberal government's track record on defending the environment over the past nine years is very disappointing overall.

We supported the government in exchange for progress in areas like dental care and pharmacare in the last two years. The Liberal government tends to talk a lot about defending the environment and defending biodiversity, but when it comes to making tough decisions that are really important and crucial for the environment, it just does not happen.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have learned through this report that there used to be a shoreline protection program, but the federal government stopped funding it. Reading the first recommendation, I see that it is recommended to re-establish that program. Can the member share with us the importance of implementing this recommendation?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Nunavut is asking a question that is extremely important, not only for the St. Lawrence River, but for all riverbanks throughout Quebec and Canada, and Nunavut as well. I think this recommendation is crucial.

The federal government must not shirk its responsibilities with regard to defending our environment, our ecosystems and the banks of all these rivers, the thousands of rivers that make up Quebec and Canada. I hope that the government will implement this recommendation.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

This issue means a lot to me. The Lac-Saint-Louis riding covers the westernmost part of the Island of Montreal, known as the West Island, nestled among a network of major rivers and bodies of water. These days, crossing one of these bodies of water via the Île-aux-Tourtes bridge is a little difficult, not because the bridge is under construction, but because a new bridge is being built. In the meantime, travelling from my riding to the riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges is very hard.

My riding is effectively surrounded by bodies of water on three sides: the Rivière des Prairies to the north, the St. Lawrence River to the south, and Lac des Deux Montagnes to the west. The Ottawa River flows into the Rivière des Prairies and Lac des Deux Montagnes and then into the St. Lawrence. This can be problematic at times because of sediment carried in by the Ottawa River. Some water in the St. Lawrence River turns brown at the point where it reaches my riding because of the Ottawa River sediment. The other part is fairly clear.

As a member of Parliament who pays close attention to what is happening around his riding, I have seen water levels change from one year to the next for natural reasons. An order was issued not long ago concerning water regulation. The order states that natural phenomena should be what determines water levels. There are at least four or five boating and sailing clubs on the St. Lawrence River in my riding. The water is low some years and higher other years. That is a problem for people who have boats, who sail and engage in all kinds of other recreational activities. I am therefore very familiar with the situation on the river.

The river is not the same as it was 300 years ago. We sometimes forget, but the river has changed a lot. Think of the construction of Notre Dame Island at the Expo 67 site, when an artificial island was built right in the middle of the river. Obviously, the seaway has changed the river dynamics a great deal. The changes can be seen in a wonderful film by Quebec animation director Frédéric Back. He made an extraordinary film about the St. Lawrence River that shows the changes that have taken place over the years. There were no hydroelectric plants along the river 300 years ago. There have been a lot of changes, and what is currently happening with shoreline erosion is a more complex phenomenon than one might think.

By the way, I would like to acknowledge the work of the marine pilots. I know several. As members know, these pilots board a ship and pilot it along the river all the way to the Great Lakes. Once it reaches the Great Lakes, other marine pilots take over. They do extraordinary work navigating this river, whose contours can be rather tricky at times. What is more, the river is not very deep. Flying between Montreal and Toronto, we can see the bottom of the river from the plane. That may be one of the reasons waves have an impact on the shoreline.

The river has evolved a lot. It is an economic driver, and several members have raised that fact in their speeches. It is a waterway that has a huge economic impact, not just on Montreal and on Quebec's economy, but also on Ontario's economy and that of the rest of Canada as well. Accordingly, when we make decisions about navigation on the river, we have to consult the economic stakeholders. That obviously includes Quebec. The Government of Quebec has an interest in making sure its voice is heard.

We have also heard that shoreline erosion is not necessarily very easy to explain. It is not just a question of ship speeds or size. As I just said, the marine pilots do extraordinary work to ensure that passing ships have as little impact as possible on the shoreline and the natural environment of the river.

Incidentally, I would like to remind the House that the government, in co-operation with the Government of Quebec, asked that voluntary measures be implemented to reduce ship speeds. One might think that those measures would not have any impact because they were voluntary. However, I read that 98% of ships are complying with the new reduced speeds, which is quite something. Ships, guided by marine pilots, are doing what they can to minimize impacts.

I mentioned this earlier in my question to my colleague from Victoria. When we were discussing the forest fires in Alberta at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, we heard that we never used to get the kind of winds that we are seeing today in the forests and on the river. That all goes back to climate change. We are in an unpredictable situation. It is unprecedented. We have to assess what is happening in the river because of human factors, such as shipping, but also because of environmental factors, especially those related to climate change.

The government assesses what is happening in the river to carefully target the right solutions. Let me give an example of a case where, thanks to sound scientific research, we avoided spending billions of dollars for nothing. Everyone is familiar with the Experimental Lakes Area, a natural laboratory in Ontario. It is home to experiments on pollution issues, which are conducted in real lakes. At one point, it was determined that nitrogen levels in waste water needed to be reduced and that billions upon billions of dollars would have to be spent to that end. Scientific research in the Experimental Lakes Area concluded that it was not nitrogen that was causing the problem. In the end, the billions of dollars did not need to be spent. We must be careful to arrive at the right scientific conclusions before taking action.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his discussion about the importance of rivers, which obviously bracket his constituency on all sides.

The theme of the discussion today has been a lack of action by the Liberal government. I sit on the transport committee. This report had six recommendations that were supported by members from all parties, including the five Liberal members who sit on the committee, three of whom are from the Greater Montreal area.

We have noted the fact that there are existing budgets, resources and expertise, yet no action. The Liberals have had nine years, and the member just talked about the fact that we need to study more.

What is the holdup?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not accept the premise that nothing has been done. I have a list of programs that are designed to help with the problem of eroding shorelines and I will name a couple.

One the government brought in, through a recent budget, is a natural infrastructure fund to support natural and hybrid infrastructure projects that can advance biodiversity goals. I know, for example, the city of Beaconsfield in my riding has applied under that program specifically to shore up some shoreline areas that have eroded.

Things are being done. There is a freshwater action plan, which is already on stream and is related to the initiative to create the Canada water agency. There is a lot going on, but it takes time.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am currently wrapping up a report that we will soon be submitting to the government because there is a problem in my riding. Along both the Yamaska River and the Rivière Noire, shoreline erosion is problematic. The people of Saint-Hyacinthe, Saint-Pie and Saint-Damase have been telling me about this for years. Obviously, that has all kinds of impacts on the environment, but people are also telling me about property that has been destroyed by the waves. Wakesurfing is one of the biggest culprits. It is not exactly commercial shipping, but it matters.

Given that property values are plummeting, along with all the other problems, inconveniences and irritants, at first, I naively thought all we had to do was contact the government and have the department send its inspectors out to do what had to be done. I learned the hard way that I was in for about two and a half years of endless consultations, reports and investigations for small municipalities that do not have a lot of resources.

Is it normal that such an archaic approach is being taken and that, as we speak, my assistant is the one writing up a very lengthy report, or in other words, doing the work that public servants should be doing right now?

Is this what he calls a modern country that cares about the environment?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not disagree. I think that we need to improve the way the public service works so that it responds more quickly to requests for information. I, too, often communicate with all sorts of departments and ask for information to guide my next steps. I am surprised at how slow the process is, and I think that we need to do everything we can to improve that.

This is not just a problem with the federal government. One simply has to go to the SAAQ to see how things work there. This is a problem inherent in all bureaucracies. We need to focus on that. I agree with my colleague.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have learned, through this report, just how complex the regulations are, given that there are municipal, provincial and federal regulations. One of the discussions mentioned in this report is the need for a multi-stakeholder approach.

Can the member share with us how important federal leadership will be to ensure that shorelines are better protected?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt about it. I think this is a model example of an issue where stakeholders need to come together, including indigenous communities.

I was at the INAN committee yesterday when representatives from the community of Kahnawake spoke about how it is their river and they never gave it up, and they need to be consulted properly. Yes, multi-stakeholder consultations are at the heart of the matter.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, what we are talking about today is serious. Some people do not seem to realize what residents have been going through, and I do not mean lately, I mean since 1997. They watch big ships go by every day. It is a privilege they would not want to give up, because it is wonderful, but they are suffering the consequences. Year after year, they are seeing their land crumble away, but their property tax is not going down. They pay taxes and even though the land is smaller, they are not paying less.

They want to intervene. Most of them are even prepared to pay a lot of money. However, intervention is extremely complex and highly regulated. They would have to apply for permits. They would have to talk to one department and then talk to another department. They can intervene on their own land, but if the neighbour does not do anything, the water will get in through that neighbour's land and get underneath the structure. At the end of the day, the work will need to be redone or it will be completely ineffective. Worse yet, this can even harm a third neighbour.

A waterway is an ecosystem. It is a whole. If the riverbank is developed in one municipality, that development may have an impact three municipalities away. That is why a collaborative approach is needed.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has a hard time understanding how the federal government can so easily wash its hands of its responsibilities. Navigation is a federal responsibility. This is the government's responsibility. It established a program. It built structures in my riding in the 1960s and 1970s. Take the retaining wall in Berthierville, for example, which is now on the verge of collapsing into the water. The federal government built it. Then, in 1997, it said it would start being hands off and the community would just have to deal with it. As science and studies have evolved over time, we now know that these structures, known as grey infrastructure, may not be the best solution. They can speed up the flow of water, leading to repercussions elsewhere. This is common knowledge.

How can a G7 nation suddenly decide that, since cuts have to be made somewhere, this program should be cut and the people should be left to fend for themselves? What is more, the people being left to fend for themselves are Quebeckers, because the effects are being felt around Montreal and Lake Saint‑Pierre. That is the message we are getting. Earlier, another member asked if there would be a stronger response if the effects were being felt in Ontario. I hope we are wrong in saying that, but the current situation certainly leads us to that conclusion.

Can the government take responsibility and coordinate a response? That is what this is all about. It is about coordinating the response so that we do not abandon our constituents and our small municipalities, which do not have a lot of financial resources.

I will talk about the event that led me to be so interested in this file and why there is now a Lanaudière‑Mauricie St. Lawrence shoreline protection committee in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. It was created on the initiative of a constituent named Roy Grégoire. I thank him very much for his work. He launched the petition and brought people together. That was how the committee came about.

However, Berthier—Maskinongé was not the first to tackle this issue, because another member had already been working on it for many years and had done some of the work. I want to take this opportunity to commend my very esteemed colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who has done a remarkable job. He demonstrated that earlier in his 20-minute speech. We could give him another 20 minutes and I am sure he could fill that time. We might even give him a third speaking slot of 20 minutes to fully explain to the people in the government what we have to do and what the problem is.

I cannot imagine how two opposition members found the time to meet with people, talk to them and conduct studies. We met with scientists at the universities in Montreal and Laval, in Quebec City, to understand how they are studying shoreline erosion, what new technologies are out there and what erosion control measures could be implemented.

Concrete walls may no longer be the answer, but there are things that can be done. How is it possible that we have a comprehensive understanding of what is happening, yet the government is not taking care of it? Come on.

A government leader asked me if we asked questions about this, as if it were our fault. Honestly, the committee worked very hard on this. We came up with serious, rigorous, science-backed recommendations. That is something we hear a lot in the House. The report was tabled a year and a half ago, and nothing has happened. Now we are being criticized for moving concurrence in this report in the House. I am sorry, but something has to be done.

I am working on another file in which nothing has been done for a year and a half. Bill C‑282 is in the Senate. We are doing the same thing. We are applying pressure, but nothing is moving forward, and that is not right.

People need to understand shoreline erosion. I shouted out to Roy and my colleague. I want to shout out to the mayors in my riding who have also taken—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé. He will have three minutes and 40 seconds to continue his speech. I must interrupt him to make a statement.

Unparliamentary Language

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Yesterday, during question period, the Chair indicated that the Leader of the Opposition had used language directed at the Minister of Foreign Affairs that was deemed to be unparliamentary. In fact, it was very similar in nature to language used earlier this year by a member who accused the Leader of the Opposition of pandering to an odious regime. At the time, that member was asked to withdraw the comment.

Therefore, yesterday, I asked that the Leader of the Opposition do the same, namely, to withdraw his comment at the earliest opportunity. To date, this has not happened. We will soon find ourselves at the time of day when the Leader of the Opposition normally undertakes one of his most important roles: leading question period. Members will recall that, when the Leader of the Opposition was himself the subject of unparliamentary language, to which I just referred, members of his caucus took great offence and made that perfectly clear to the Chair occupant. The Chair, very rightly, insisted on a withdrawal. As such, I am sure members can appreciate that I must do the same in the present circumstances.

Our parliamentary system entails abiding by the rules that members have made for themselves in the House and that they have entrusted to the Speaker and other Chair occupants to enforce.

Disregarding the authority of the Chair, who is tasked with enforcing these rules, has a corrosive effect on our proceedings. I would ask all members to reflect on this, especially the House officers for each party. Ultimately these situations also leave an increasingly negative impression for the public on the important work of the House and its members.

The Leader of the Opposition is an experienced member; he is well versed in our practices and procedures. He knows that, in our system, the role of the Leader of the Opposition is to ask questions of the ministry, ensure that it is held accountable for its actions and challenge its decisions. His role is not to make the government comfortable, quite the contrary; however, his actions must also be exercised within the existing boundaries of parliamentary decorum.

Over the past few months, there have been two occasions where he has not heeded the Speaker's rulings regarding unparliamentary language during question period. A first instance resulted in him being named and the second resulted in questions being removed from his party. Yesterday's events have resulted in a third instance.

The Leader of the Opposition should withdraw the comments he made yesterday during question period. If he is not willing to do so, the Chair will not recognize him for the remainder of today's sitting.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé has three minutes and 40 seconds to finish his intervention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that it was necessary to interrupt me when I had just three minutes and 40 seconds left, but I will let it go.

I was thanking the mayors who stepped up and showed leadership. I thank Mr. Barthe, who invited me to Saint‑Ignace‑de‑Loyola to show me that he had been forced to urgently repair a road without any financial support from the federal government or the provincial government. Without pre-approval, once the work is done, there is no chance of getting any money. It is just not possible. In his case, the road would have fallen into the water if the repairs had not been done. That is the situation: a small municipality with few resources is abandoned but still needs to invest its own money.

I thank André Villeneuve, mayor of Lanoraie. As soon as the committee was created, he took charge of operations, offered meeting rooms and rallied people to the cause. I also thank Alain Goyette, who is currently showing incredible leadership in putting all of this together. Thanks to him, things are finally moving.

Allow me to explain why this is important and why there is erosion. Structures have been built upstream to control the flow of water. Some of these structures are built near populated areas in my riding. They are called control weirs, and they are basically stone walls that were built to keep the water in the river, raise the water level and keep it high and constant by controlling the upstream dam and combining it with the Ottawa River. The water is always at the same level, and erosion occurs always at the same level.

No one can tell me that the St. Lawrence Seaway is not the cause of these major erosion problems. The two are directly related. These are structures. Government was asked to help with the work, but it said no because it cannot just throw money away like that. However, the government has the money to come in and work on the control weirs. Workers came this summer, and our mayors did not even know what was happening. These workers were working alongside the municipalities and, when asked, they said that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had sent them. The mayors then wrote to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to ask why these people were doing work in their municipalities.

The St. Lawrence Seaway is very important. The federal government is going to do some work there, but the mayors have to deal with the secondary repercussions and the hundred-year-old trees falling into the water. They can cry about it all they want, but no one cares. The workers and the government do not care. That is the situation right now.

Another minister, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, is currently looking at creating two reserves in the Lake Saint-Pierre archipelago, where ship speeds would be reduced, which is not a bad idea. Maybe those two departments could talk to each other? Maybe they could also talk to the third department, Transport Canada, about making ship speed restrictions mandatory rather than voluntary?

There are all kinds of things that can be done, but everyone needs to work together to implement a comprehensive response to ensure that interventions in one place do not have a disastrous effect on the neighbours. That is why the federal government needs to step up, stop trying to take over provincial responsibilities so it can feel important, and just do its own job, in its own areas of jurisdiction, to support our citizens and our municipalities in protecting their shorelines, because they urgently need them to be better equipped to withstand erosion. Climate change is just getting started. It is far from being resolved. The climate will become increasingly irregular. People need help, and it is our responsibility to help them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to talk about the importance of the issue at hand, and I brought up one issue that was a bit of a surprise, which is how long the report has been sitting and waiting. It was tabled 18 months ago, and the Bloc decided to bring it forward today. I thought it was interesting that, when I put that to one of the member's colleagues, I was told the report was tabled in April 2023 and that March was the last time the Bloc asked a question on the issue.

With the importance the Bloc has given it, why has it not been raised since the tabling of the report, which was a year and a half ago?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, unlike many others in the House, I will endeavour to be polite and show respect, which can take various forms.

This is outrageous. We are talking about a report that was prepared in committee in a serious way and submitted to the department. We expected to wait three months for something to happen, knowing how big the government is. However, a year and a half seems a long time. It is a bit like the thingamajig on the other side of the Hill, the Senate. It does not move at all. At some point, items have to be put back on the agenda.

Today, we are not being thanked for putting the topic back on the agenda, because it is important, after all, and because we are right that it is a federal responsibility that was sloughed off in 1997, not to mention that people need help. Instead, we are being told that it is our fault and that all we had to do was put it back on the agenda sooner. Come on. Give me a break.

Can we focus on the content? This is a serious report, prepared with tremendous diligence and based on scientific evidence. There are people living ankle-deep in water. The government needs to stop telling us to relax, though I think it is too late now. What we need now is action.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion on shoreline erosion. I will be sharing my time with—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are in the question and comments period. Does the hon. member have a question?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the government has an emergency plan, just a plan to carry out studies and so forth.

Personally, I see this as an emergency. Does the hon. member agree?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, the time for conducting studies has long passed. Incidentally, if they want studies, we can give them studies. The people in the municipalities in my riding funded the studies themselves because the federal government could not care less about this issue.

Is it not appalling to see small municipalities with a few thousand residents forced to invest their own money in research, because the government is doing nothing? They have to convince the government and demonstrate the urgency of the situation, even though the government is well aware, since it created the shoreline protection program in the 1960s and 1970s to maintain and secure the channel.

Let us be serious. The seaway brings in billions of dollars a year. Do not tell me that there is no money to help ordinary people who live along the seaway.