Denis Coderre

[Montreal Italian Community, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today, we have the honour of welcoming a group of citizens of Italian origin from the riding of Papineau, in Montreal. I would like to take this opportunity to stress the exceptional contribution of these people, who are members of Montreal's large Italian community and also constituents of the riding of Bourassa.

Like all Italian Canadian associations, this group plays a major role in the relations between Canada and Italy. These groups are important cultural, educational, economic and political bridges.

Italy is also our second most important bilateral partner. In 2004, our exports exceeded $1.8 billion. The Canadian government also wants to strengthen bilateral cultural and personal ties, and to work on implementing innovative programs in new areas, such as youth exchange programs and cooperation initiatives in science and technology.

[Member spoke in Italian as follows:]

Grazie per tutto, grazie per vostro appogio et benvenuti a Ottawa.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is appropriate to thank all those who have participated and are participating today in this debate. I want to acknowledge the attitude with which my colleague from Niagara Falls stepped in.

I would like to preface my question. More than three years ago, following the events of September 11, when I was immigration minister, we were already confronted with what I call standards standardization. We had to make sure not to impede the flow of tourists and other people. We had to find solutions together to ensure that no economic problems would arise because of the security issue.

It is essential that we clearly demonstrate that we are not at the mercy of our neighbours and allies and we must control our own information. More importantly, we must stay the course regarding the importance of facilitating passenger traffic. At the time, I had instigated a meaningful debate on the establishment of a national identity card. In fact, it was an application of the biometric card.

In this regard, I have noticed a certain shift in attitude in the Conservative Party. Back then, the immigration critic and member for Calgary—Nose Hill was dead set against such an idea. I note that, now, several people think that using the same biometric technology could be an important factor.

First, we need to ensure that passenger traffic flows well. Second, we must also ensure that we maintain a certain rhythm in the flow while adapting to the new global reality.

This entire debate calls into question the very use of biometrics, while maintaining our own security policy, but in a context of openness. We must strike a balance between openness and vigilance. We must give ourselves the tools that will allow people approaching the border from either the United States or Canada not to see a wall that would prevent economic development. This is the message we must get across.

My colleague talked about the CANPASS program. We have the NEXUS program. There already were tools and extremely important elements we could use and be at the forefront.

I have a brief anecdote. When I was touring the neighbouring states, namely the State of New York—we talk about Windsor or Niagara Falls, but we must also mention Lacolle and most of the other ports of entry—at the time, we were at the forefront and we were able to use this type of tool that enabled us to continue to monitor this information.

While having a security component that facilitates trade, the issue of control may allow us to adequately implement this alternative, among other solutions. Indeed, I do not think we should be at the mercy of our American allies and neighbours. However, we should have some options and alternatives that will allow us to meet the new standardization process that is taking place at the international level.

Let us take a look at ICAO. The best example is the use of passports. At ICAO, they even decided how a passport picture should be taken.

So, what would the hon. member like to see? Perhaps it would be a change of position for his own political party. We could re-evaluate it and adopt a strategy. Parliament could look at an information policy, a policy on standards and come up with alternatives, with a working instrument, which could be biometrics.

The best example is what is called “off-line” biometrics. “On-line” biometrics means—the question is coming—that we have access to a databank. That is not the point. The idea is to have an “off-line” instrument. For example, with a scanner, there could be a sort of green light, red light. In Hong Kong, every day, 144,000 people cross the Shenzhen border and it takes 10 seconds to process each one of them.

Would the hon. member for Niagara Falls be in favour of using off-line biometrics, which would reduce waiting times for truckers and facilitate the flow of travellers, while also promoting economic development? Does he think we should revive the debate on a national identification card and on the proper use of biometrics to protect our own interests?

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Aerospace Industry, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

I must admit that I was surprised when the Quebec minister of economic development, innovation and export trade said at Le Bourget that the Government of Canada was not necessarily concerned about aerospace policy and that Quebec should even develop its own policy.

Can the Minister of Industry set the record straight and give us proof that the government is indeed concerned about the aerospace industry and that, as minister, he intends to take very concrete action to prove that we have an aerospace policy in Canada?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot get away with saying whatever we want by doing it in a roundabout way. For instance, we cannot quote profanities used by someone else to get around the fact that we are not allowed to swear in this House. Calling people traitors is the same thing.

I believe we all want decorum here. These antics must stop. I ask that the hon. member retract his statement. There is not a single traitor on either side of this House.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, people can use freedom of speech to express their point of view, but there is not a single traitor in this House. That said, I ask that the hon. member retract his statement, as he called members on this side of the House traitors.

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is still new to this Parliament and is today slipping into a somewhat facile view of matters. He is trying to give the question a partisan spin.

I would say, quite simply, that we have work to do as members. We do not want to put a spin on things, as such. My colleague from Brome—Missisquoi began the debate. I congratulated the Bloc on having an opposition day on this issue. My colleagues from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot worked on it. Today is not the day to get into petty politicking.

We must remain on course. Today, we presented a motion in this regard, because I think we have to work together and send this message. The fact that so many organizations, mayors and associations, even from within the RCMP, agree, tells me that we should all pitch in and not get into petty politicking.

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I note the member's enthusiasm but we have been working on this file for quite some time. It is not new to us. That is why I moved we vote on this immediately. We did, and I assure the House that various decisions were not made simply because the Liberals on this side of the House worked toward that end.

I agree with the member for Shefford. Parliament needs to send a message. I believe in the minister's sincerity, integrity and good faith. I may disagree—and this is inherent to politics—with some aspects of her positions. The fact that Parliament may make such a decision will send a clear message.

I agree with him that this need not take all day. That is why I moved the previous question, so that we could vote on it and send this message as unanimously as possible.

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to address this important issue for several reasons. First, I think we should congratulate and thank the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi, who worked tirelessly on this issue. Of course, this is not a partisan issue. I was pleased to see the Bloc Québécois use an opposition day to debate it.

Policing and civil protection are not partisan issues. The role of this Parliament is to ask real questions from time to time and not to engage in petty politics or procedural wrangling, as the Conservative member likes to do.

I also want to speak as a former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Following the events of September 11, I wanted to implement an approach that would strike a balance between openness and vigilance. Of course, Canada is a very open country. It is a land that welcomes immigrants. However, we must also have the tools to protect our fellow citizens. This protection is provided through constant presence and work, particularly at ports of entry.

I must admit that when I look at the list of affected municipalities, namely Baie-Comeau, Coaticook, Granby, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Joliette, Lac-Mégantic, Rivière-du-Loup, Roberval and Saint-Hyacinthe, I really wonder.

I am the member for Bourassa. I have been living in Montréal-Nord for 33 years, but I am also a native of the region of Joliette. Joliette had an RCMP detachment from 1949 on, and it did an exceptional job, particularly in the fight against organized crime and biker gangs. It definitely played a critical role in the protection of our fellow citizens.

I have a great deal of respect for the RCMP. In my role as special advisor for Haiti, I was able to see that the RCMP did a tremendous job at the international level, as it does, in some respects, at the regional and provincial levels. However, I fundamentally disagree with the minister, who thinks that we should adhere strictly to what the commissioner wants, and who says that if this is what the commissioner wants, then it must be good.

Commissioner Zaccardelli is a person who has accomplished a great deal for the RCMP, and an extremely competent one as well. But, philosophically, I do not agree with him on this issue. I think that, when it comes to crime solving, visibility and presence are essential. One needs only look at how huge Canada is. Naturally, as Mayor Guy Racine said, as we reduce our presence, organized crime will look for the weak link. In that sense, it is important and essential to be able to play our part in the field.

Many organizations and individuals are not pleased with this decision. We are talking about not only members of Parliament, and there are many of both sides of this House, but also, as my hon. colleague from Brome—Missisquoi indicated earlier, former colleagues of ours, like Diane Jacques, David Price and Gérard Binet, who have worked relentlessly on this issue. We are also talking about the mayors of the nine cities concerned, the prefects of the RCMs—because the RCMs of Brome—Missisquoi and Maskoutains are also affected—the Association des policiers provinciaux, the Fédération des policiers et policières municipaux du Québec, the Fraternité des policiers de la Montérégie as well as the Association de la Gendarmerie Royale du Canada au Québec. I think that we have to ask ourselves questions. It is not just a labour-management conflict. We are talking about people, the men and women who have worked in the field and who have to face what is going on on a daily basis. In our quest to protect our fellow citizens, it is essential that we consider this.

I agree with my hon. colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. This House does have a duty to take a stand and it has to send a message to our government. We may not always agree philosophically but everyone in this place, including the government, of which I was part at one time, is working for the well-being of our fellow citizens.

There are important moments in politics when Parliament, this seat of democracy, must take a stand.

We must stand firm to launch this debate on the entire concept of vigilance.

After the events of September 11, billions and billions of dollars were invested in protecting entry points, for example. A great deal of effort was put into legislative reorganization in order to ensure they were well protected. The strength and ability of this country and this government lie in always striking a balance.

There must be justice, and justice must be seen to be done. I sincerely believe that we need to reconsider this aspect. There are, of course, several different schools of thought on this. Some would like to see all our resources concentrated in Drummondville, working on certain other aspects, but ready to be present in case of need. The reality is quite different, however. Suppose someone grows marijuana in this or that region, out on some rural route in St. Something or Other, or some very isolated spot. Simply because it takes so long to get to the spot, it becomes impossible to collect evidence.

In my opinion, the role of the RCMP needs to be redefined. I would go still further and say that it is time the international aspect is also addressed. A great deal of resources have been invested in protection, billions of dollars. The RCMP needs to play a specific role internationally, but not at the expense of certain regions. The RCMP does its job in the field; we have no problem with that. Not only are they competent and upstanding, but they are also characterized by a professional conscience that does them credit.

Second, resources need to be redefined, and the tools created for such things as an international branch of the RCMP.

If one of these restructuring operations is not carried out at the expense of the other, we will never again be able to use the same excuse, or adopt the same philosophy, of the necessity to reorganize for improved performance, particularly where computer crime is concerned. There is one reality that remains, however: if there is one weak link in the chain, the first thing organized crime will do is to infiltrate it and take advantage of it.

I am aware of the extremely hard work put into this by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He has, moreover, been subject to threats as a result. This is indeed an important element.

Today what we do not need is any flag waving, any procedural games, any party politics. We all need to join together in order to tell our government that it needs to reconsider this. That is why I move:

That this question be now put.

[Aquatic Championships, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating a great moment in amateur sport and a great moment for our athletes and coaches.

Today I would like to stand up and say how proud I am of my city, Montreal, and its mayor, Gérald Tremblay. Mayor Tremblay has succeeded, against all odds, in saving not only one of the most important of world sporting events, but also the reputation of his city, our province and our country.

Despite the detractors and nay-sayers among the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives, both more keen on pointing fingers and scoring political points than on saving the event, Mayor Tremblay has saved the day, and the World Aquatic Championships will indeed be held in Montreal in July 2005.

Honourable mentions should go to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and to FINA President Mr. Larfaoui. His sensitivity to the situation enabled him and his board members to come up with the best solution for these athletes.

In a world constantly trying to discredit politicians, I would like to close with a quote from a great contemporary philosopher—