Denis Blanchette

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I continue to be shocked that, in a parliamentary democracy, the first thing the government does is limit debate. We are dealing with a very important bill, one that will change many lives and have a great deal of impact, and the first thing the government does is limit debate.

How will limiting debate help economic growth? I see no reason why this bill has to pass this week rather than in three weeks. Why is it urgent that we pass it now and have such a short debate about such fundamental issues?

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. Although it was meant to be reasonable, I did hear some absolutely absurd things. For instance, he said that shareholders will receive less money because pensions have to be paid. It is a question of priorities. Would we rather give priority to all individuals, or only to those who have a lot of money?

My colleague said that the Conservatives are responsible and that they are taking measures. The first question we need to ask is this: if this issue is so important, why did this government not hold a public debate before making a decision?

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for moving this motion and making the opening statement.

I would like to begin by situating the debate where it belongs. For people who have worked their whole lives, old age security means independence and dignity. It is a universal program for everyone, but in particular, it helps fight poverty among seniors.

Raising the age of eligibility means downloading responsibility onto the provinces because many people will have to rely on social assistance.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that. Are we not fighting for the dignity of people who have contributed so much to today's society?

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech. I liked his speech for a number of reasons, including the fact that he talked about our responsibility as a parliament and as legislators. It is important to strike a balance between the judiciary and the legislature. We have seen responsibility sliding more and more towards the judiciary and away from legislators.

In addition to these very important considerations, I would like to know what parameters my colleague would like to see in rural communities so that this bill could be properly implemented in those areas, given that security is sometimes very different in rural and urban communities?

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. In passing this bill, of course, we are opening the door to the possibility of overdoing it.

I would appreciate it if my colleague would tell us what the government should do to place safeguards around the bill--to make sure that, on the one hand, we reach the bill's objectives, and on the other, that we do not go over the top with it.

[Firearms Registry, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when, unfortunately, too many Canadians are forfeiting their right to vote, either out of disillusionment or cynicism, it is refreshing to know that the students of École secondaire De Rochebelle, a high school in Sainte-Foy, have worked hard putting together a petition to address an issue of national concern.

As part of an extracurricular activity, some École De Rochebelle students, members of the rights and humanities committee, took the initiative to raise awareness among their peers, teachers and families regarding the need to maintain the firearms registry.

The petition and its 192 signatures unfortunately could not be officially presented in the House, and the Conservative government decided to destroy the firearms registry.

Nevertheless, I would like to congratulate these students and their teacher, Simon Mathias Poulin, on their initiative, an excellent sign of their desire to take part in Canada's democratic process.

Perhaps not all hope is lost, after all.

[Emergency Debate, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his speech, in which he listed many aspects of the problem. The only problem I can see is his conclusion. He states that the pharmaceutical industry should be somewhat more co-operative. As it is not, because profit comes first, we are experiencing shortages.

I have a question for my colleague. In view of the fact that pharmaceutical companies will not want to voluntarily discuss their problems—and these are definitely their problems—and they will also not want other companies to know they are having problems, when should reporting no longer be voluntary and measures be imposed to ensure that the patient comes before profit, as my colleague said?

[Emergency Debate, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for taking part in this debate.

One of the reasons we have this problem right now is that health costs are increasing considerably, and the provinces are always looking for ways to reduce costs. Because the federal government does not want to provide the provinces with enough funding for health care, among other things, the provinces are forced to have a single supplier in order to get a better price. This causes the problems we are experiencing right now. All the minister is offering is to advise the provinces to ask the private sector to co-operate.

I have two questions for the minister. First of all, at what point is she going to stop simply asking people to co-operate and finally show some leadership? Second, once she finally decides to show some leadership, what does she plan to do to ensure that Canadians never have to go through this again?

[Port of Québec, March 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Quebec City, I am pleased to speak to this debate on the motion this evening.

The founding of Quebec City, the oldest inhabited city in North America, owes it roots to its port. Before the arrival of the French in 1535, various first nations tribes used this site for bartering. Quebec City's port was a link between two continents and under the French it became the fulcrum for trade.

In 1666, thanks to Jean Talon, the first shipyards appeared in the region. Davie Shipbuilding is the inheritor of a long tradition of shipyards in the Quebec City area.

Port activities intensified considerably in the 19th century with the increased demand for wood to be shipped to England and with the massive influx of immigrants at the port. Between 1800 and 1850, some 30,000 immigrants made landfall at Quebec City each year, often in the harshest of conditions.

When the construction of wooden ships was at its height in Quebec City, between 1850 and 1869, some 2,000 ships were built there annually and almost 100 shipbuilders were located there, employing some 5,000 workers. At the end of the 19th century, competition from the railway and access for large trans-Atlantic ships to the Port of Montreal created new challenges for the Port of Québec. The 20th century saw the opening of the Anse-au-Foulon sector of the port, enabling the port to export manufactured goods, and the construction of the Beauport sector of the port, enabling the port to become a transshipment point for bulk cargoes destined for ports on the Great Lakes.

In 2002, the Quebec Port Authority opened its cruise ship terminal in the Pointe-à-Carcy sector. This new facility allows the area to benefit fully from significant changes and many economic spinoffs.

In 2008, for the fifth consecutive year, the Port of Québec broke a record for volumes handled, handling close to 27 million tonnes of cargo and receiving over 100,000 passengers. That is wonderful, but could it do even more?

In the House on December 6, the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans said:

The Canada Marine Act provides port authorities with a high level of autonomy and allows them to manage their infrastructure and services in a businesslike way that considers and reacts to their users' input and needs.

If I were to support the opposition motion, it could eventually compromise the system, and we would risk finding ourselves with the same problems we had before the Canada Marine Act was passed, namely, ineffective ports that are over capacity and dependent on government subsidies.

That statement by the member for Ottawa—Orléans reveals his and his government's complete failure to understand the Port of Québec's current situation. The Port of Québec has reached the limits of its operating capacity, generating profits that are small compared to its need for cash to finance improvements to facilities to make the most of new opportunities. Unfortunately, there are no programs to support the improvements the port authority would like to make. The port authority is merely managing day-to-day operations; it cannot think of the future.

Despite the fact that port activities are less central than in the 19th century, they still play an important role in the economy of the greater Quebec City region. What exactly does that mean?

We have heard these numbers before: 5,000 direct and indirect jobs in the region related to port activities; nearly $800 million in economic benefits; 20% of port facilities dedicated to recreational and tourist activities; over 100,000 cruise ship passengers; over 27 million tonnes of merchandise; and $160 million in taxes paid.

These numbers seem impressive, but it is important to note that there is no room for improvement given the current state of affairs unless the Port of Québec can modernize and upgrade its infrastructure. In a constantly changing world, those who do not move forward fall behind.

In other economic sectors, we have seen the disastrous effects of neglecting long-term infrastructure needs. Maintenance and upgrades done when needed always cost less than neglect followed by massive eleventh-hour investment. We have seen examples of this recently.

Given the circumstances, we must not bury our heads in the sand. We must immediately address the challenge posed by the changing nature of our ports, specifically the Port of Québec, the subject of this motion. This motion was moved because Quebec City was born as a seaport. Its geography and history are associated with the river, the water and all related activities.

Modern and forward-looking infrastructure is the cornerstone that will allow our domestic companies to make the most of the opportunities available. That is why, in my opinion, it is unthinkable to neglect the renewal of this type of infrastructure. The Port of Québec must be able to seize all opportunities. The future begins today.

We must also preserve the intermodal aspect of transporting people and goods by considering various factors such as costs, environmental protection, infrastructure preservation and the flexibility of transportation solutions. The Port of Québec contributes to this intermodal capacity.

Given that we live on a planet that is over 70% covered by water, in a country that is bordered by three oceans, and in a region where the Ontario-Quebec continental gateway allows access to a market of over 135 million consumers, we cannot neglect any of our assets, and the Port of Québec is one of them.

Economic players in the Quebec City region want the federal government to be proactive about existing projects, whether it be the construction of a deep-water wharf or a new grain elevator, the modernization of storage equipment or the redevelopment of the Louise Basin. That is why it is essential that the House recognize the importance of the contribution that the Port of Québec makes to the region's economic activity and that it support the port infrastructure renewal projects.

We are obviously talking about the Port of Québec here but when the NDP speaks on behalf of one person, activity or port, we speak on behalf of all. I therefore ask the House to support this motion.

[Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 1st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. He said that we need to have sufficient guarantees to be able to support this bill. He talked about labour law, but his comments suggested that Canada should impose its own conditions to make the free trade agreement acceptable to us. Could the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou expand on that?