Marc-André Morin

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I realized something listening to this debate, and I wonder if my colleague would agree with me. I have the impression that the most important thing for this government is to get this bill passed as soon as possible and never talk about it, in case people realize that Justice Wells' main recommendation was not included.

Those who go and work on oil platforms in the future risk not coming home if the helicopter gearbox is out of oil. When the Conservatives do not want to do something, they drag their feet, they take their time, they do only half a job and they do it at the last minute. That is my impression. What does my colleague think?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about one specific aspect.

We now know that the energy sector is under incredible pressure. We need only look at how the Europeans tremble before Russia, which could shut off the gas at any time. There are immense profits to be made. I understand that my government colleagues on the other side of the House are in a hurry to develop our resources and turn a profit. We see that they are trying to speed up the process, minimize consultations and facilitate the implementation of energy projects. That is already a big gift to the sector.

I have difficulty understanding why the Conservatives would impose a limit on the liability of businesses when they mess up. Would it not be fair to privatize the profit and de-privatize the expenses once again?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to speak to us about something that is always dismissed out of hand and that is the precautionary principle.

I have an example. I visited the region of Japan where the tsunami occurred. There was a nuclear power plant there. The local authorities insisted that it be built on a hill. Doing so practically doubled the cost of the power plant. However, when the tsunami hit, the water ripped out the trees on the hillside without causing any damage to the power plant.

I wonder who made the better investment: those who invested in the Fukushima power plant, which was built by the sea and whose pumps stopped working when the tsunami cut out the engines, or those who were smart enough to spend twice as much on building a safe power plant?

If there is a risk that a potential disaster could cost the equivalent of twice our national debt, then I think we should start thinking about a different approach.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to government funding allocated within the constituency of Laurentides–Labelle for each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2013-2014: (a) what is the total amount of funding by (i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) other government entity, (iv) program; and (b) how many jobs have been created as a direct result of this funding, including both (i) full-time jobs, (ii) part-time jobs?

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just reminded me of something, and that is how easy the government and its leader find it to consider the possibility of doing business with dictatorships. Indeed, dictatorships are the most efficient form of government, the quickest to make decisions and the easiest to do business with. I would like the member to tell us whether he agrees with his leader in this regard.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned tourism several times. That is an interesting subject. In Canada, tourism is slowing down and has been for years. Canada was once a great global tourism destination. Now it seems like nothing is happening and there is hardly any promotion of Canadian tourism to people in other countries.

I would like to know where people are going. Whenever people talk about tourism, the destinations are tax havens and warmer countries. Why not get people to come to Canada to visit our country? We have so many tourist attractions. Can my colleague comment on this? We are definitely bringing up the rear.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the international trade champion.

He accused us of suggesting that Honduras is not much of a priority, but I think he sees Japan as even less of a priority. I travelled to Japan, where I met serious business people who wanted to invest in our resources because we have energy and workers. Japan has capital. Japan is the best partner we can possibly imagine.

While I was there, I found out that the Canadian government had shut down consular services without notifying the Japanese. That is absolutely ridiculous. Now it is ready to bend over backward to sign an agreement with Honduras. I would like the minister to explain his priorities, because I think Japan is more important than Honduras.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just made me realize something.

First, I would like to apologize to the interpreters, because I am going to make them work hard. English is not my mother tongue, but I speak it pretty well. To misspeak is to use the wrong word. It is minor and we can apologize for it. To make up a story is to misbehave. That refers to misconduct.

When we break an established rule, one that requires us to behave in a certain way, we have to behave. When we make up a story, we misbehave. It is not the same as being mistaken or saying something stupid. Breaking the rules is quite a bit more serious, especially when the existing rules clearly establish, beyond a doubt, that person did so on purpose. That is when it becomes serious.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on a few points.

An apology is, in a way, a confession. When we defend ourselves or ask others to defend us, or if people rush to our defence, that is an admission of guilt.

As for where to draw the line, the question is not really a question because the line has already been drawn in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Furthermore, the Speaker already said that the line had been crossed.

Today the Conservatives are asking us to entertain the possibility that, in the House, people can distort the truth or say things that are untrue to achieve a goal, then apologize and be done with it. That threatens democracy.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this question is much more profound than they realize.

We were elected by the people and given the title of “honourable members”. Voters are under the impression that the person they are sending to represent them is honest. To me, honesty means telling the truth. We cannot just apologize and forget the whole thing. That worked when we were children and snuck cookies from the cupboard.

People from the 46 municipalities of Laurentides—Labelle are likely watching the debates on television and are trying to get a sense of what is being discussed. If those voters realize that it is possible for MPs to distort the truth in order to support their arguments and then simply have to apologize for having done so, they will be bitterly disappointed. It will make them more cynical.

This is more serious that we realize. We cannot just apologize and move on.