Jean-Yves Roy

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that the bill before us, which I began speaking about briefly yesterday, is the former Bill C-57. After prorogation of the House, it became Bill C-4. This is essentially the same bill granting businesses wanting to invest in nuclear energy a privilege that we consider excessive and that exempts them from any responsibility.

From the outset, we completely disagree with this bill for one simple reason. I strongly believe that the current government should have invested more in clean energy such as wind energy, instead of once again giving nuclear energy another chance. I am convinced that the community and most citizens —and my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke mentioned public consultation on this issue yesterday— would like to get rid of this energy and see it eliminated from the Canadian and Quebec landscape.

The second reason, which I alluded to earlier, is that the Bloc Quebecois believes that, if backers find this investment too risky, there is no reason why it should be any different for society.

I am having trouble figuring out where the government is going with this bill. It absolves investors of any obligation by saying “What we want as a government is to ensure that people can invest in nuclear energy without having to get involved if there is a problem”. If there were a disaster and the site needed to be decontaminated, it would again be up to the people, in other words the government, to clean up the mess. I am convinced that, because of the high costs of site remediation, the companies responsible would probably go bankrupt and disappear into thin air. Again, the government would have to deal with the problem. The State and its citizens would have to pay to have the site decontaminated. This bill leaves the door wide open to this kind of abuse.

The third reason is that, despite everything being said, we believe that there are significant risks associated with nuclear energy. The main risk of course has to do with waste disposal. We could remind the House of the Chernobyl disaster. Some will say “Yes, but our nuclear power plants are different. They do not use the same technology. Candu reactors are used at our plants”.

We have exported our Candu technology throughout the world. In fact, we have even gone as far as selling it to dictatorships when Eastern Europe was still under Soviet rule.

In spite of all that, I believe that nuclear energy is dangerous. We saw that a few years ago, two or three years ago, when we toured Canada's nuclear generating stations, whether in Ontario or in New Brunswick, where the Pointe-Lepreau nuclear generating station is located. We realized that nuclear generating stations, particularly in Ontario, were not well maintained and could pose significant risks for society as a whole and for those living near these stations. Of course, because of the size of our continent and because of the dominant winds, if ever there were a nuclear accident in one of these stations—and I could also talk about nuclear generating stations located in the state of New York—we would be affected in Quebec. And the same goes for all of central Canada and even for the east coast.

These are the three reasons why we will oppose this bill. However, I would like to go back to the treatment of nuclear waste. Investing $6 billion in Atomic Energy of Canada without knowing how nuclear waste will be disposed of is a typical example of a society's failure to think.

As a society, it is irresponsible to produce this type of energy without knowing what we will do when the time comes to treat nuclear waste, to dispose of it in an appropriate manner and to decontaminate the sites where these generating stations are located.

I would like to quote from the press release that was put out by the former Minister of Natural Resources when he introduced the bill. It accurately reflects the spirit of the bill as well as our fears:

These companies must have access to commercial credit to finance their needs, like any other enterprise, said Minister Dhaliwal. This amendment will allow the nuclear industry to attract market capital and equity. At the same time, we can continue to ensure that nuclear facilities are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner.

Continuing:

The Act's current wording has been interpreted to extend site remediation liabilities beyond the owners and managers to also include lenders—

I would stress, these are the minister's own words.

creating for them unknown financial obligations that may exceed by far their commercial interest. The consequence has been to discourage private sector interest in lending to the nuclear industry.

Here we have the minister introducing a bill and making such an incredible statement. He is telling us “Yes, but the private sector does not want to invest in nuclear energy, because the risk is too great and is an unknown”.

So, we are just going to absolve them of responsibility. Is the risk not also a major one for society as a whole? Is what is now being done not just bringing the risk here, before this House, so that the entire community will have to assume that risk, rather than lenders?

We cannot in any way support such a bill. In my opinion, this is a mistake that must be corrected. I am convinced anyway that, if we were to require businesses, lenders, to be liable for an accident, none of them would invest in nuclear energy.

What point is there in this, if the private sector refuses to invest in nuclear energy, in this type of energy?

In recent days there has been much talk of the Kyoto protocol. The government wants to see it passed, but we could also talk about this government's past record as far as clear energy is concerned. If we no longer invest in nuclear energy, a replacement must be found. In my opinion, it will need to be replaced by new energies, and there must be heavy investment in these energies.

I would describe the federal government's track record, as far as investment in new energy is concerned, as shabby and irresponsible.

Simply consider the proposed investments in wind power. I was telling you earlier that more than $6 billion was invested in the Atomic Energy of Canada program. What is the federal government doing to help develop wind power, particularly in our regions? We know that regions like the Gaspé are great places to develop this kind of energy.

The existing federal government program gives us access to $17 million per year over 15 years to develop wind power. This is simply ridiculous, if you compare it to the $6 billion invested in atomic energy.

We could also look at other sectors when fossil fuels are concerned. The Hibernia project in Newfoundland alone received $3.8 billion in assistance. Currently, we are discussing the Kyoto protocol. We are being told that it is essential to ratify Kyoto and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The government invested $3.8 billion in the Hibernia project for oil and gasoline, which is a highly polluting fossil fuel energy and a big producer of greenhouse gas.

Direct subsidies of $1.22 billion, $1.66 billion in loan guarantees and a $300 million interest assistance loan were granted to the Hibernia project in Newfoundland. Ottawa also financed 65% of the total project cost, and now look at how much currently goes toward developing wind power.

Did the federal government do the same with hydroelectricity? It did not invest one penny in this sector. Fossil energies were developed, when we had the capacity to develop clean energies such as hydrolectricity. This government never invested one penny in hydroelectricity in Quebec, when it was pouring huge amounts of money into the other provinces.

I could also have talked about what happened regarding the Athabasca tar sands. Since 1970, the federal government has invested $66 billion in fossil energies such as oil and gas. Let us try to imagine what would have happened if, in addition to the $6 billion invested in atomic energy, that money had been invested in clean energies. If we had had $72 billion to develop clean and alternative energies, today the Kyoto protocol would be a mere formality. We would probably be ahead of the other countries of the world. We would produce a lot less greenhouse gases.

I want to go back to wind energy. We talk about it a lot right now because of the Kyoto protocol, but we could also do it because of what the government is proposing. Over the past six years, wind energy has experienced an annual growth of 30% worldwide.

Germany is the number one user of this form of energy. It has 40 times more installed power than Canada. Europe alone has almost 75% of the world's wind generators. Yet, we all know that, at one time, Europe was a major developer of atomic energy. Today, it is doing everything it can to get rid that form of energy, because it is not, in its opinion, a truly cost-effective form of energy, considering the costs involved and its end result, namely the waste that it produces. Moreover, current technology does not allow us to get rid of the waste produced by atomic energy.

Consequently, the European Union wants 22% of its electricity generation to come from renewable sources, wind energy in particular. A large part would come from this type of energy, as I mentioned. Denmark is currently meeting 13% of its energy needs through wind energy. Even the United States has significant incentives, including a 2.7 cent per kilowatt-hour subsidy, to meet an objective of over 500,000 watts.

Let us look at what the current government is offering in the area of wind energy. This $17 million per year comes from a program that spans several years and sets out a 1.2¢ per kilowatt-hour contribution for projects set up in 2002, a 1.1¢ per kilowatt-hour contribution for those started in 2003, and so on, all the way to a 0.8¢ per kilowatt-hour contribution in 2007. This is being called an incentive, this $17 million a year to develop clean energy here. Personally, I do not think that this amounts to much. I think the government has the responsibility to invest more in wind energy.

The Bloc Quebecois proposed a $700 million federal wind energy investment program. That may seem like a lot of money, but I remind those listening that if we look at the amounts that were given to the oil and nuclear industries in recent years, it adds up to more than $72 billion. We are talking about $700 million compared to $72 billion. I do not think that it is too much to ask for a real program to promote wind energy. It would be fully in line with ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

We know very well that wind energy is a clean source of energy. It produces no greenhouse gases. Therefore, it does not constitute a danger for our society, nor for the society we will leave for our children.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, are proposing a $700 million program over five years. I might add that this is a minimum. If we decided tomorrow morning to develop wind energy just in eastern Quebec and particularly in the Gaspé Peninsula, we could create 15,000 jobs in short order, including on the North Shore and along the Lower North Shore. Nuclear energy could never do that. It could never do that for our regions.

Fifteen thousand jobs could be created in Quebec if $700 million was invested in the development of wind energy. This would involve developing a made-in-Canada technology rather than an imported one. It would be all ours, adapted to our climate, adapted to our environment. We would be creating a high tech industry, with worthwhile jobs, and could later export the technology. We have a particular climate and therefore need to develop technology that is tailored to that climate.

As I said, this is what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing. When we first proposed this, the objective was to create a minimum wind power capacity of 1,000 megawatts in Quebec alone, mainly the Gaspé region. That is why the program we are proposing would target component manufacturing plants. As I said, it is not just a matter of setting up wind generators, or of just purchasing the technology and sticking up some poles with blades on them on some mountain. That is not what will create jobs. That is not what will help us make technological advances over other countries. That is not what will allow us to develop, particularly in a region like the Gaspé.

I should perhaps point out at this time, given the local socioeconomic situation, and the possibility of a cod moratorium, that we stand to lose another thousand jobs in the Gaspé. In Newfoundland alone, there will be 11,000 jobs lost. If a substantial investment were made in wind power, the economies of these regions could be given a real boost.These regions could develop by turning to high tech, instead of being totally dependent on natural resources.

It is important for this government to realize that this would be a major input for developing our economy. In recent days, moreover, what has been called for unanimously, in Quebec, in the Gaspé, on the North Shore, in Newfoundland and the maritime provinces as well, is a true program to jump start the economies affected, particularly those that will be hit by the potential cod moratorium. Some economies were virtually totally destroyed by the 1992 moratorium. By adopting measures in favour of developing clean energies, energies to replace fossil fuels or nuclear energy, we have an opportunity—

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to ask a question of the hon. member from the Alliance who has spoken often in this debate. The subject is nuclear energy, but there are also energy alternatives.

I would like to know if he understands the difference when wind power is discussed, for example. Does he understand that it is the wind that turns the turbines and not the turbines that create the wind? I do not think that he truly grasps the meaning of this bill, which takes the responsibility away from lenders with regard to the nuclear industry.

This bill is saying to lenders, “You can support nuclear energy. No matter what happens, you are not responsible. You will not be responsible if there is an accident or if a site becomes contaminated”.

By doing this, we are telling lenders to the nuclear industry, who refuse to invest in this energy because they think it is too risky and too dangerous, “No problem, you can invest with no problems; we guarantee that, from now on, you are not responsible”. So we are taking responsibility away from the private sector.

My hon. colleague from the Alliance claimed earlier that the private sector was currently being granted privileges because in comparison to the public sector, the government invested $6 billion in the atomic energy program alone. It is like saying that the private sector does not want to invest because the risks are too great and, therefore the government has to invest.

In my opinion, neither the private sector nor the government should invest in nuclear energy. It is a form of energy that should disappear. There should perhaps be investment in an area that aims at finding a way to get rid of nuclear energy, to eliminate it and replace it as soon as possible. It is especially important to find ways to dispose of nuclear waste and to treat it in such a way that this type of waste will not have to be dealt with for centuries to come, so that our children and grandchildren, and their grandchildren, will not be forced to solve this problem.

You will understand that we are completely opposed to the bill before us today. I would like to remind the hon. members that this bill was called Bill C-57 prior to prorogation of the House and that it is now called Bill C-4. Nonetheless, it is exactly the same bill and it conveys the exact same intention by the government.

The government's intention is simple, as I mentioned earlier. In fact, it is giving the green light to backers by saying, “Henceforth, you will no longer be responsible”. This is unacceptable to me.

The government has a very bad record in terms of investment in fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Why did it invest—

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his speech which I found very well documented and excellent, as well as my colleague from the New Democratic Party who just spoke.

The NDP member talked about wind energy and investments in nuclear energy. I will remind him of a few numbers. The nuclear program alone accounts for investments on the order of $6 billion.

As for wind energy, the federal government is only committed to investing $17 million a year over 15 years, for a total of approximately $260 million. There is no comparison between investments in nuclear energy and those in clean energies such as wind energy.

I would just like to read to the member what the former Minister of Natural Resources said when this bill was introduced for the first time. It was then Bill C-57. In a press release the minister said:

These companies must have access to commercial credit to finance their needs—

This amendment will allow the nuclear industry to attract market capital and equity.

The minister went on and mentioned lenders. Previously, there were obligations regarding site remediation and the act made it possible to involve lenders in remedial actions.

The news release also said:

Lenders were faced with unknown financial obligations that might have exceeded by far their commercial interest.

The minister himself is stating that investment in nuclear energy is an unknown risk. Not only is it an unknown risk, but we know full well that we cannot get rid of nuclear waste.

Could my colleague explain to me how the government, which itself recognizes that nuclear energy is an unknown risk, can grant such a privilege to lenders. The government is saying: “We will not loan money to the nuclear sector because it cannot be trusted. Should a disaster occur, the risk is way too high for us”.

When the minister responsible makes such a statement, how can the government commit to investing in nuclear energy and granting privileges to lenders?

[Cod Fishery, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, scientists are on the verge of confirming that the catastrophic management of fisheries by Fisheries and Oceans Canada may warrant a total moratorium on the cod fishery. A government document suggests that such a moratorium will have a major impact on the eastern regions of Quebec and the Lower North Shore, as did the 1992 moratorium.

Instead of making the same mistake as in 1992, does the government plan to cooperate with Quebec to put forward concrete measures to help the communities that would otherwise pay the price for the government's inability to manage cod stocks?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for informing me, in your great wisdom, of the speaking time I have left. Naturally, I will endeavour to use this time appropriately. When I spoke on Bill C-17, I pointed out that this was an improved version of the bill put before us last spring, the public safety bill, Bill C-55.

At the time that bill was introduced, I rose to express great concern about, among other things, controlled access military zones, now referred to as military security zones, as defined in Bill C-42.

This was a very important point. I should remind hon. members that the concept of controlled access military zones, at the time, made it possible for the government to establish protected military zones, which could cover any area where there are military facilities. This could lead to abuse. At the time, I gave the very specific example of Quebec City as a potential controlled access military zone. It would have been very difficult to do anything in Quebec City if there had been problems of terrorism.

The other point I raised at the time concerned the interim orders. The new bill before us today also contains provisions on interim orders. We were primarily concerned about the deadlines for these orders and the way they could be made, the fact that the decision to make interim orders could be made by an individual, either the minister or an official.

A problem remains concerning interim orders, and I will come back to that. I am talking about the lack of preliminary compliance audits. I will address this issue later, to explain why we oppose the new version of the bill, Bill C-17, before us today and dealing with interim orders.

We also strongly emphasized another point: the exchange of information. In this respect, the amendments proposed to the previous bill fall far short of what is needed. A great deal of information can still be exchanged and, as far as I am concerned, too much control and power is given to the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I will come back to that also. The privacy commissioner commented on this last spring. He is saying pretty much the same thing now, stating that the provisions do not represent the proper balance between safety and security, and privacy.

So, I said in the first part of my remarks, that we would vote against the bill in its present form. We will do so for reasons that are essentially the same as those mentioned last spring, because, in our opinion, the changes made to the bill are clearly insufficient.

More specifically, on the subject of military security zones, a recent news release issued by the Department of Transport indicated the following:

The government concluded that it needed to take a more measured approach and re-engineer these provisions in a way that achieves a better balance between the public interest and the ongoing legitimate security needs of Canadian Forces and visiting forces in Canada. The government recognizes the need to deal with these security concerns as a matter of some urgency. As a result, it has decided to establish, through Order-in-Council, controlled access zones in Halifax, Esquimalt and Nanoose Bay harbours.

The same news release, which was issued when the bill was introduced, also said:

These controlled access zones will be much narrower in scope than the earlier provisions and will apply only to the three naval ports in question, although other such zones could be considered on a case-by-case basis, should the security situation dictate.

This last comment is a source of concern for us.

Of course, we are pleased that, in the new bill, the government did not include the military security zones that were being considered at the time. However, the fact is that these zones can still be established through orders in council.

This measure seems much more reasonable to us than the prior one. However, it still leaves room for abuse and this is one of the reasons we are not supporting this bill.

We must be sure, obviously, that when military zones are established, particularly in Quebec, they be established with the agreement of the Government of Quebec, particularly if the zone in question includes Quebec City, or other military bases located in Quebec.

As for the interim orders, the bill still contains provisions that would allow various ministers, and in at least one case, bureaucrats, to make interim orders and we have concerns regarding this. When it comes to interim orders, they really must be tabled in Parliament so that Parliament is informed of the situation, and aware of what is really happening.

The time period has been shortened, from 45 to 14 days before cabinet approves it, which is still far too long as far as we are concerned. What is more, the major problem regarding interim orders is, as I said earlier, that there is no prior assessment to ensure that they respect the charter and enabling legislation.

As for the sharing of information, as I said, this is a very, very important element, especially for us, because we are used to certain freedoms and we try, as much as possible, to avoid giving the police too many powers. In fact, Bill C-17 allows two different individuals, in addition to the Minister of Transport, or an official designated by the minister, to have direct access to information on passengers from airlines and airline reservation systems operators. These two individuals are the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This information may be requested in the case of an imminent threat to the safety of transportation. In the case of CSIS, this information may also be requested for investigations into threats to Canadian security. Bill C-55 also allowed for the disclosure of information about persons for whom a warrant has been issued.

Usually, the information collected by the RCMP and CSIS must be destroyed within seven days of being received or obtained, unless it is reasonably necessary for transportation safety, or to investigate a threat to Canada's security.

Once again, we are granting what I would call a discretionary power. We are giving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the authority to retain this information and not destroy it if the commissioner determines that it could be useful.

Personally, I consider that to be a serious threat because we should require that this information, and all the other information, be destroyed within the prescribed time limits, unless, of course, special authorization is granted by the minister or the cabinet.

Last May, the Privacy Commissioner issued a letter in which he expressed his concerns about the provisions of Bill C-55 giving the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to personal information. He said he was troubled about the provisions, and I quote:

a) Empowering the RCMP to obtain and scan passenger lists in search of anyone subject to an outstanding warrant for any offence punishable by imprisonment of five years or more; and

b) Allowing CSIS and the RCMP to retain passenger information in search of suspicious travel patterns.

With respect to paragraph a), several provisions were problematic at the time and still are. Among others, there was the definition of the term warrant and those provisions allowing the RCMP to collect and communicate information about individuals subject to an outstanding warrant. The commissioner suggested that these provisions be withdrawn from the bill.

Basically, the RCMP would compile a file, share the information with other police services or other institutions in order to do checks. To what extent should these files be destroyed or eliminated? That question has been raised.

Currently, from the way we understand Bill C-17, the government has tried to tighten up these provisions, but in the end the door is still ajar and there is still a danger when it comes to files being compiled, information sharing and the disclosure of personal information regarding Canadians and Quebeckers who travel. I think that the door is open far too wide when it comes to the RCMP obtaining personal information.

Even though, under Bill C-17, the RCMP no longer has the power to collect information in order to find a person for whom a warrant has been issued, it still has the power to share information obtained under the provisions of Bill C-17 with a peace officer if it has reason to believe that it could be useful in executing a warrant. This is still what I would describe as a discretionary power, which in my opinion is a very problematic element when it comes to Bill C-17.

In fact, it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police itself that decides when a situation is a threat to transportation security, which allows it to ask an airline for information concerning passengers. As soon as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has any doubt, it would be allowed, under Bill C-17, to ask the airline for information concerning passengers. This leaves room for abuse.

In the bill, there is no control mechanism concerning this provision. I believe that the government should have included restrictions throughout Bill C-17, that it should not have opened the door so wide with respect to this provision and allowed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to obtain information relating to all airline passengers.

This gives the Royal Canadian Mounted Police carte blanche as it were. Furthermore, once the information is obtained, nothing prevents the RCMP from keeping it, as long as the reasons for doing so are recorded. This means that a file would be created on people who travel within the country or elsewhere. A file would be created on all the people using air transportation and all the information concerning passengers could be obtained through the airlines, which appears extremely dangerous to us and also appears dangerous to the Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski.

In concluding, I would like to reiterate that we will vote against Bill C-17, for the reasons that I just mentioned, among others.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, since we are nearing the end of the debate, before I ask my question, I would like to thank my colleagues for taking part in this debate. It was a most interesting debate. I would also like to thank the minister for his presence.

I would like to reassure my colleague from Yukon that throughout this debate, we have been very conscious of the state of the Coast Guard in his region. What all of us here want, and I hope he agrees with us, is to ensure that the Coast Guard really is able to respond to the what the government is asking it to do. In other words, a lot is being asked of the Canadian Coast Guard right now, and it is not being given much when it comes to its means.

Furthermore, and this is important, as I said during the debate, it has become a collector of taxes for the government. I do not believe this is its role.

I would like it if my colleague could tell me if he agrees with us that we must, as much as possible—obviously one has to take into account the fact that everyone has their priorities—increase funding to the Coast Guard to ensure that it fulfills the mission it has been given, and that this organization can someday function under reasonable conditions, which is not the case right now.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech and I would like to add something to what he talked about.

Of course, he talked about icebreaking, about the fees charged by the Coast Guard, but he also talked about the shoreline protection program, a program that was abandoned. However, I would like to add something, and I will ask him my question after briefly describing another problem that occurred in the St. Lawrence Seaway because of the fees charged by the Coast Guard.

It concerns dredging. Currently, the Coast Guard charges dredging fees, in the St. Lawrence channel, to ships that call at a port located in the Seaway and in the St. Lawrence. Fees are not charged to ships that, for example, use the Seaway to travel to and from an American port. The Quebec and Canadian shipping industry is penalized once again. The Quebec and Canadian shipping industry is forced to pay for ships that are just passing through, that simply come from an American port or that come out of the Seaway or a port, or that travel the St. Lawrence to go to an American port. They are basically being asked to pay for competitors, to pay their way.

My question is this. Does the member think that it is acceptable that the government has used the Coast Guard as a tax collector and that there is so much injustice toward the Quebec and Canadian shipping industry?

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from the Toronto area recently became the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I take this opportunity to congratulate him.

I would like to address a problem that concerns the Great Lakes region, as well as the St. Lawrence River. I am talking about cost recovery for the Canadian Coast Guard.

What the industry and the Canadian advisory council, as well as the five advisory councils that make up the larger council, are saying is that this has had a significant negative impact on marine traffic on the St. Lawrence River, and even on the St. Lawrence Seaway and into the Great Lakes.

We are told that worldwide marine traffic is increasing because of globalization, of course. In our region, inland, on the St. Lawrence Seaway, however, traffic is declining because of the fees charged by the Canadian Coast Guard, among other things.

Here is how shipowners react: they touch in at port as seldom as possible, because each time they are charged the equivalent of $3,700, if memory serves, from December 22 to May 5, or something like that.

The industry made a proposal that would give us an agreement for 10 years at least. Would my hon. colleague agree to approve the Marine Advisory Council's proposal to phase out marine service fees and to a term of 10 years on the proposed agreement?

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we must address the Chair and that you are always involved in the debates, but I would like to put the question directly. Here is my question.

In May, the Coast Guard commissioner said “There is too great a discrepancy between the Coast Guard's budgets and its mandates”.

I would like to know if the hon. member disagrees with the Coast Guard commissioner. I would like to know if he contradicts the commissioner's comments. I would like to know if he hopes the Coast Guard commissioner will resign, since he does not seem to agree with the comments that he made.

Is this what he really wants? Does he want the Coast Guard commissioner to resign? Because the commissioner himself said that the budgets allocated are inadequate and that we are not living in the best possible world. I would like an answer.

[Canadian Coast Guard, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be a short one.

This summer, in my region, in the Magdalen Islands, we experienced a rather major problem. Whenever there was a private entrepreneur who could provide the necessary service when a fishing boat experienced a breakdown, the Coast Guard would completely withdraw and the private entrepreneur, who would charge the fisher a fee, would go and get the boat.

Of course, fishers were upset and they did not accept this situation. The private entrepreneur was forced to stop operating.

I would like to know if the same thing happened in the hon. member's province, in Newfoundland?