Jean Rousseau

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from Drummond and Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

Can my colleague explain why people are again worrying about a derailment, like the one in Lac-Mégantic? The rail industry was deregulated and let loose. Rail safety has been seriously neglected. The government is about to make the same kind of analysis and agree to let a project go ahead. The Conservatives are even challenging Supreme Court rulings. It is clear that they are going to disregard the Quebec Superior Court.

Is the government not worried about another derailment?

[Energy Safety and Security Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, although the environment is a pressing issue, the government has not proven to be responsible in this area as it shirked its responsibilities at the UN climate summit.

When it comes to the environment, the government is shirking its responsibilities, and I would like to understand its logic.

This week, once again, the government did not take responsibility with regard to the moratorium on Cacouna and protecting the St. Lawrence River. It should at least be able to conduct scientific studies.

What is the logic of the government, which is shirking its environmental responsibilities and trying to change the rules this morning by putting an end to debate?

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague's opinion on something.

She said that for all kinds of reasons, it is important to protect Canada's natural environment, its ecosystem, and other such things.

I would like to once more bring up the oil spills that have happened in the past, including the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which caused a great deal of collateral damage. The costs are not in the hundreds of millions, but the billions of dollars. There is an economic cost as well, at the local level, including to tourism and fishing.

Why, then, is it important to protect these areas and ensure that under the bill, some liability lies with the carriers and the oil companies?

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on his excellent speech. He focused on something that is very important to us, the NDP, and that is the tourism industry and inshore fishers.

When we talk about spills, the marine industry and oil transportation, it makes me think of something called “accountability”. This Conservative government has had a lot to say about that. If we think about accountability with regard to Bill C-3, we would hope that this bill provides adequate protection for the marine and oil transportation sectors.

We are talking about significant amounts of money. Just think of the British Petroleum incident in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago, or the Exxon Valdez. Twenty-five years later, the fishing industry and tourism are still more or less wiped out. There is no compensation directly associated with these sectors.

What does my colleague think about these vital industries, especially with regard to his region?

[Summer in Compton—Stanstead, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this summer, there will be lots to do for those who visit my riding, the most beautiful in all of the Eastern Townships, Quebec and Canada.

Tourists will appreciate and enjoy Compton—Stanstead because of its lakes, rivers, mountains, and bed and breakfast establishments, and especially because of the people who live there. Some of the activities to enjoy are the 150th anniversary celebrations of Coaticook, which will welcome tourists with its cheese and famous ice cream; Expo Vallée de la Coaticook in August; the Comptonales, an agri-food fair in September in the picturesque region of Compton, where the wonderful Donabelle farm strawberries are ready to be picked; and the Raid de Jean-D'Avignon in East Hereford in July, which attracts 350 cyclists, as many as the people who live there. That is incredible.

Visitors can also watch the Perseids at the Mont-Mégantic observatory, walk the Sentier Poétique in Saint-Venant-de-Paquette, which is a real cultural jewel, and take in the agricultural fairs in Cookshire-Eaton and Ayer's Cliff.

By all means visit Quebec this summer and you will discover its distinctive character.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Oh, shut up.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, one could argue the member is contradicting himself. If Lester B. Pearson went to war, it is because he knew he would save his country, his Queen and his democracy. The fact that Mr. Pearson went to war does not make him an aggressor.

That is called freedom. We are the ones fighting for freedom, which has ceased to exist in the House of Commons under Conservative rule.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that Canada is being made out to be a sometime instigator of conflicts. That is totally ludicrous. It is a regressive and totally outdated view. I have spent time with colleagues opposite, and I can tell you that that is not the way they see things.

They can clown around all they like. We will see which clowns will be at the starting gate in 2015. I am convinced that half of them will not have the nerve to even show up.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that anyone would make such comments. The member said that we are not a pacifist country. We all know that when soldiers go to war, they go to war. We know what that means.

Fundamentally, the people of Canada, from coast to coast to coast, are pacifists who want peace. Of course we fight for democracy when we go to war. Our boys fought in the Second World War to uphold democracy and ensure that we would not have to pay a bloody price for our right to vote. It is insulting to hear such comments in the House.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Those are the figures we have, Mr. Speaker. It is true that collateral damage occurs, because civilians have even been killed by these weapons, and CBC journalists who witnessed that have also been severely wounded.

Apart from clause 11, what does the wording of the bill say? It refers to the prohibition of these weapons, and yet people will be in contact with them. Soldiers will carry out their missions right to the end because they are honest men acting in good faith who defend their honour. However, it is utterly absurd that hundreds of thousands of people should suffer the collateral damage caused by this kind of weapon. These are innocent victims who will lose an arm, a leg or both. Their lives will be ruined forever. This is completely ridiculous.

If the government wanted to introduce a bill that is true to our tradition and certainly to our nature as a peace-loving country, it would have to ensure that, no matter where our soldiers are deployed, they will not come into contact with this type of weapon. Of course, that is virtually impossible. At least if the bill conveyed that intent, we could say that the legislative body, the House of Commons, had done its duty.

I will ignore all of the comments about whether we should debate this or not. This will end soon, and we will all spend a lovely summer campaigning in our ridings.