Luc Malo

[Japan, March 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, a disaster of unimaginable proportions struck Japan last night. An earthquake registering 8.9 on the Richter scale hit that country, triggering a tsunami with 10-metre high waves. Aftershocks were also felt, some measuring 6 or 7 on the scale. This is the most powerful earthquake on record in Japan and the fifth largest since earthquake data collection began. Reports are just starting to come in, but these events are causing consternation. The next few hours will certainly be critical for the victims.

My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois join me in expressing our solidarity and our empathy for the people of Japan, and anyone else who might be affected by the consequences of this earthquake. We will continue to monitor the situation closely in order to ensure that the government takes all the necessary measures to provide support and aid to the people in need. Our thoughts are with the people of Japan.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, what we have just heard makes no sense. It would appear that democracy means nothing to the member opposite, that the meaning of honour and transparency, and being held accountable to the public and to parliamentarians, are of absolutely no value. It is unacceptable to hear that from a member of this House.

I have a very simple question for him. What is so difficult about being transparent and making documents available, particularly those related to Afghan prisoners or the documents the parliamentary budget officer needs to be able to understand the government's figures? What is so difficult about producing these documents? I would like the member to explain.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, we know how democracy works: rules are established so that, when an election is held, voters can choose their representatives in the House of Commons and, in the case of Quebec voters, in the National Assembly of Quebec. Election rules are necessary because without them there would be pandemonium; might would make right, and the winners would be the strongest or those with the most cronies. Therefore, rules must be established. The rules are voted on and enacted by this very Parliament. The members of the House, who vote on these laws, choose a referee. That referee is the Chief Electoral Officer, along with his team. In 2007, the referee, the Chief Electoral Officer, told the Conservative Party that it had made a mistake and would have to reimburse monies, and that it had contravened the law enacted by Parliament. Now the government is taking Elections Canada, the referee, to court.

What does my colleague think of this?

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments.

When our NDP colleague said previously that the government was preparing for an election, even though the government says repeatedly that there will be no election, we need only recall the promise broken by the Prime Minister himself. He had a bill adopted in the House, stating that elections would be held on a fixed date from now on, every four years. But, in September 2008, he decided all by himself, totally unexpectedly and without respecting his bill, to call an election.

How can we believe the Prime Minister when he says that he does not want to call an election, when he is, himself, willing to break the laws that he promoted, presented and had adopted in this House, like the bill relating to fixed election dates every four years?

My colleague spoke about breaking the most elementary rules of democracy, and we need only think about prorogation. When this House decides to adopt bills, to reach a consensus to move in the direction of common interest, public interest, and when this does not suit the government and does not fit in with its ideology—the member spoke about ideology—it decides to shut down Parliament. I would ask my colleague to comment on that.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2011]

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

In his speech earlier, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, a minister of the Crown, said that the Bloc Québécois motion talks about Canada's economic action plan. The motion is actually about transparency. The minister's statement is an attempt to mislead the public by omission, and that is just as damaging as lying or any other method of hiding the truth. In fact, the Bloc Québécois motion condemns the government for:

...its determination to go to any lengths to advance its partisan interests and impose its regressive ideology...as it did...when the Party used taxpayers’ money to finance a pre-election campaign under the guise of promoting Canada’s Economic Action Plan...

And that is what we would have liked to hear the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and minister of the Crown comment on. I would simply like to ask my colleague if he believes that the government was in fact trying to promote its partisan interests through its promotion of Canada's economic action plan.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, in his speech earlier—

[Elbama Winery, March 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in September 2010, a winemaker from Saint-Amable, Martin Gemme, opened his retail shop for the first time to offer his first vintage.

Within weeks, a third of his production, 1,800 bottles in total, had been sold. Mr. Gemme's winery, Domaine Elbama, is the first such business in the Marguerite-D'Youville area and has quickly become a source of pride for the entire region.

Starting the business required a clear vision, plenty of ambition and lots of hard work. Indeed, this new vocation came as a result of crop diversion after the golden nematode infested Martin Gemme's land in 2006. Instead of giving up, he decided to innovate. With the help of Philippe Gemme, Daniel Blain and Maxime Gratton, who collaborated on the project, as well as Richard Champagne, who supplied the first vines, Mr. Gemme was able to reinvent his business. Together, they have built a successful family business. It has gotten off to an impressive start, which I hope bodes well for the future, and it remains a source of inspiration for everyone in Saint-Amable.

[Port of Montreal, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on February 15, at a luncheon organized by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the President and CEO of the Port of Montreal provided an outlook on the global maritime industry. The future looks promising with sustained growth in container shipping and, given its geographic location, the Port of Montreal will reap the benefits.

The Port of Montreal will outgrow its current capacity by 2015, and Contrecoeur, in the riding of Verchères—Les Patriotes, was chosen as the expansion site. I, along with the eastern Montérégie CRE and officials from the RCM of Marguerite-D'Youville, was pleased with this announcement, as the decision will have major economic spinoffs for our region and for Quebec.

Given that the Port of Montreal is a true gateway to North America, we hope that the federal government will support this project, which will revitalize the economy and create wealth, notably through the gateways and border crossings fund, of which Quebec is still not receiving its fair share.

[Shipping Radioactive Waste, February 11th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is formally opposed to the issuing of a permit to Bruce Power Inc. to ship radioactive waste. The company plans on shipping over 1,600 tonnes of radioactive steel to Sweden via the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

The millions of Quebeckers who get their drinking water from the St. Lawrence and the communities along the seaway, including many in my riding of Verchères—Les Patriotes, have valid concerns.

As with the Trailbreaker project, which would reverse the flow of the oil pipeline between Montreal and Portland, Quebeckers are being asked to take on all the risks without getting anything out of the project.

By issuing this permit to Bruce Power, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has created a dangerous precedent in maritime transportation. The government must overturn this decision. Ontario made its energy choices, and it must take full responsibility for them.

[Business of Supply, February 10th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the first Conservative Party member to speak was the member for Beauport—Limoilou. In response to a question asked by my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, she said—not without looking at her BlackBerry though—that she personally would not have an issue voting in favour of this important motion by the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

My question is very simple and is for the member who just spoke. Generally speaking, will the rest of the Conservative Party members be in favour of the motion by the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine?