Denis Blanchette

[Quebec Bridge, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the Conservatives have a habit of abandoning Quebec's regions. This is particularly true of the Quebec City region. When the Prime Minister goes to Quebec City tomorrow, he will have the opportunity to admire the magnificent architecture of the Quebec Bridge.

His government has spent nearly $400,000 in legal fees regarding that bridge, rather than investing in its maintenance.

Will his government stop the legal battle, which is not achieving anything, and invest money in this infrastructure that is so important to the region?

[Quebec Bridge, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has wasted close to $400,000 in legal costs fighting CN over the Quebec Bridge. That $400,000 was not spent on bridge repairs.

The provincial government came to an amicable agreement with CN. However, the Conservatives refuse to budge and are making no progress. Had the federal government not been involved in this matter, it would not have dragged on for nine years.

Will the minister change tactics and invest in the Quebec bridge infrastructure instead of ringing up legal bills?

[Quebec Bridge, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec and CN have just reached an agreement regarding the use and maintenance of the Quebec Bridge.

In Quebec City, everyone agrees that that agreement is a step in the right direction. Now the federal government stands alone against CN in the courts.

After nine years of inaction by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, does the minister intend to take a new approach in order to ensure the safety of the Quebec Bridge?

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her insightful remarks. It goes to show how fortunate our society is.

In Canada, we live in a wealthy and educated society. Earlier I was talking about post-secondary education. I think that my colleague would agree that we have the means to provide our constituents with all the innovation, technology and cutting-edge knowledge humanity possesses. We are that fortunate. We have the knowledge and the means to show leadership in problem-solving, regardless of the problem. In this case we are talking about addictions and prevention. We want to be able to contain certain unfortunate practices. My colleague is right to say that we must focus more on innovation. She is also right to say that we must move forward and implement modern solutions. She is right to say that we must use our knowledge for the good of the people.

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, since we are here for the first time this year, allow me to wish a happy new year to you, to my colleagues, to the staff of the House of Commons and to the people at home.

At the beginning of the year, we make resolutions. Mr. Speaker, you inspire us with good resolutions every day when you begin with the prayer asking the Almighty to give us the wisdom to make good laws, if I am not mistaken.

This is what should guide us in this debate and in the debates on every bill. We are only here for a while. What will history remember of our Parliament? How will we have conducted our debates? What legislative legacy will we leave? I would not want people to remember that confusion prevailed, or that we did not act in the best interests of all Canadians. The fact is that everyone wants our society to thrive, to prosper and to be happy. I do not think we wish anything else.

This brings us to an important question. How do we define public interest in a bill, and in this one in particular? I want to quote American journalist Walter Lippmann, when he spoke about public interest, because the definition of that expression is very subjective. Here is a taste:

The public interest may be presumed to be what [people] would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally and acted disinterestedly and benevolently.

We could add to that the ability to see the long-term results of action taken. Clearly, this is a little utopian and unrealistic. However, that is the direction we should be pursuing when considering a bill like this one.

This bill clearly shows the tectonic plates that are grinding against one another, in other words, people's values, which are not necessarily the same, and the law, which the Supreme Court clearly defined, when we are talking about the right to life, liberty or security, and the desired result or what we understand of an action, bill or institution.

Beyond everything else we could say, the real question we should be asking ourselves is this: are we going in the right direction? Will this bill, as it is currently written, allow us to improve the plight of our communities? That is the important question. If we vote for this bill, are we improving the plight of our diverse communities?

Here on this side of the House, we believe that things can be done differently. It is always a little strange to see such conflicting actions. This government boasts about eliminating red tape, but this bill introduces more red tape. The government is not very consistent. I do not know where it is going with this.

Is the government using red tape as a smoke screen, to hide its real intentions? I do not know. However, is creating red tape on an issue of public health really the best way to serve Canadians and our communities?

However, we have a lot of tools at our disposal here in the 21st century. We have knowledge that our ancestors did not have. We have a professional, coherent and non-partisan public administration to help us in our decision-making. I have the impression that we are taking a step backward, rather than moving forward, when it comes to putting public policy together.

Let me give you some examples where I think the government is not necessarily moving in the right direction to illustrate what I mean by that because public interest really is at the heart of this bill.

We have a beautiful bridge in my riding, the Quebec Bridge, that is being left to rust. Is it in the public interest to reduce the lifespan of a metal bridge that is also an image on postcards in my region? Some would say that it is in the public interest to do so, but I do not think it is. Public interest is preserving, maintaining, and taking care of our infrastructure, not being involved in legal wrangling.

Take funding post-secondary studies for example. We say we want to live in a knowledge society. Are we doing what it takes to make post-secondary education accessible to anyone who wants it, regardless of financial capabilities? The question can be asked now. I would like to know that we are contributing to a society where everyone has the opportunity to grow.

Here is where I make the link to Bill C-2. We have constituents who have a serious problem with hard drugs. The current solutions are helping those people to get off the drugs. What does the government do? It chooses to forget that, look away, play partisan politics , withdraw into certain values and not accept reality and see what it could do better. I find that fundamentally deplorable.

Beyond everything we want to do and everything we want, the wisdom to pass legislation in the public interest every day is characterized by the sincere desire to sometimes set aside our own personal perspectives.

We all have opinions on anything and everything, and our values influence our decisions. However, we are not here to promote our values. We are here to serve the public and to look beyond our own individual thoughts to make suggestions that would improve the life for the Canadians we each represent, in each of our different ridings. The public interest is what should guide our actions here.

I have serious doubts that we are headed in the right direction in this case, especially since the government is not respecting the spirit of the Supreme Court decision with Bill C-2. I would have liked the government to find a solution within the parameters set by the Supreme Court. However, that is not the case. Did the Supreme Court go against public interest? Is that truly what my colleagues think? I do not think so. I believe that the Supreme Court set parameters in order to determine the direction we should take. Unfortunately, this bill does not contribute to the public interest.

I would like to be able to say that this bill may improve public safety, but I am not convinced, since needles will end up all over the place. I would like to be able to say that this bill would contribute to public safety, but the government is throwing people whose only desire is to satisfy a temporary, urgent need out onto the street. I would like to be able to say that this bill is full of wisdom, but is it wise to want to go backwards and to refuse to listen to experts? Is it wise to not do something that is already considered around the world to be a good practice? Unfortunately, I think that the Conservative government got it wrong.

I thank the public for listening to my speech. I hope that everyone will have the wisdom to vote for good legislation in 2014.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to the legal action taken by the 2005 government against Canadian National (CN) about respecting agreements for maintaining the Quebec Bridge, which has since split into two lawsuits: (a) what were the legal costs, broken down by year, for both lawsuits from 2005 to today; (b) what portion of the amount spent on legal fees for these lawsuits was spent on accommodation, travel and meals; (c) what firms are defending or have defended the government in these two lawsuits against CN; (d) what is the average hourly rate charged by the firms representing the government during the CN lawsuits; (e) what is the total number of hours billed to the government between 2005 and today, broken down by year; and (f) what are the projected annual budgets in the years ahead for the lawsuits against CN?

[First Nations Elections Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech. I have been listening to the speeches since we started this morning, and there really are two opposing viewpoints.

On the one hand, we have a government that seems to have adopted the policy of taking baby steps, which is clearly insufficient, and on the other we have the opposition calling for a paradigm shift, a new way of looking at relations with the first nations.

Could the hon. member please tell us how she sees the paradigm shift we need to get tangible results? We cannot always do little things and get them wrong. I think now is the time to do big things and get them right. I would like to hear what she has to say about that.

[Northwest Territories Devolution Act, December 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I want to acknowledge all he has done by dedicating his professional life to building bridges between communities. I thank him for that.

My colleague said that results are not all that matters. How we achieve them is equally important. I would like to draw on his experience and have him tell us how we can build a better country by having communities work together.

[Quebec Bridge, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week, my colleague asked a serious question about the state of the Quebec bridge. The member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière would only say that it is not his responsibility. The bridge is CN property, and CN is regulated by Transport Canada. Safety of this bridge is therefore a federal responsibility. Transport Canada has a report indicating that the bridge's deterioration is accelerating.

Will the Conservatives stop hiding behind their legal battle with CN and give us the most recent information on the state of the bridge?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who so eloquently spoke about the collateral damage of drug use. When someone becomes addicted to drugs, which is terrible, it is not just that person who is affected. Everyone around them is as well: family, friends and even the community. The member began to talk about that, mentioning dirty needle pick-up programs. Dirty needles are a problem in large urban centres.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to speak some more about that collateral damage because when we are studying a bill, it is important to look at is what is best for the people.