Marc-André Morin

[Privilege, March 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a long, pointless exchange. Earlier, the minister said that it was time we started acting like adults, apologized and moved on. That implies that it is okay to do just about anything, as long as one apologizes.

I take my work seriously because I know that Canadians are paying me to be here to debate serious issues such as bridges that are crumbling, wheat that is rotting under tarps in the fields, mail that is not getting delivered, planes that are not flying and boats with an unknown delivery date. There are plenty of issues that need debating.

I heard a member on the other side of the House say that everyone, deliberately or not, twists the truth sometimes. That is not a very strong defence.

I alluded to Russia because I am seeing a shift here in Parliament, and I feel that Canada's democracy is deteriorating. We do not resemble Russia now, but we may eventually. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Privilege, March 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to apologize but to remind the minister that he is supposed to address his comments to you, rather than keep picking on me. That does not get us anywhere and it is becoming more and more ridiculous.

[Privilege, March 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate is getting a bit off topic. I do not really see what Russia and Ukraine have to do with this except for the fact that our system here in Canada is starting to resemble theirs.

I would like the minister to get back on topic.

[Situation in the Central African Republic, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, there were times when I found it a little difficult to listen to such debate.

While our colleague talked to us about dollar amounts and Canada's great humanitarian success in the CAR, people took refuge at the airport. They huddled up against the fences and were attacked with machetes by killers. They would like to leave, but the airport has not been secured.

Have we not reached the point where we should send military assistance or logistical support to secure the airport and help these people leave and save their lives?

[Situation in the Central African Republic, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier raised a very interesting point. Indeed, to intervene in a situation like this one, there are certain steps that cannot be skipped. For instance, stopping the massacre is absolutely crucial, but it will not be stopped with slogans like “Responsible Resource Extraction” and “Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity”. It will take people on the ground.

Last summer, I met a Canadian soldier who had served in East Timor. He was wounded, which compromised his well-being for the rest of his life. He told me that he had never been so proud of his profession and had never felt more useful in the world than on that mission. I think East Timor was a success story for Canada. I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on that.

[Situation in the Central African Republic, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I am pondering some rather deep questions. One has to wonder whether all those rich countries that have exploited Africa for hundreds of years are now in a state of moral collapse.

African products are worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Everyone has coltan that was extracted by children in African mines. All of this wealth is controlled by criminals who order massacres all over the place. Now that something needs to be done to help people out, the rich industrialized countries that benefit from Africa's bounty should all step in and put an end to the slaughter.

In Rwanda, 700 or 800 well-armed men might have been able to stop the massacre in a few hours, as General Dallaire used to say. We see how things are shaping up; there is no end in sight. Many people seem to think, like Joseph Stalin, that “when one person dies, it is a tragedy; when millions die, it is a statistic”. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Situation in the Central African Republic, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, does my colleague think that this would be a good time for Canada to have a seat on the United Nations Security Council and to still be a major player internationally?

It seems to me that we have been relegated to the minor leagues for the past few years, that we need to rebuild our image by taking action and that we should be learning from Senator Dallaire's experiences.

[Petitions, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from constituents in my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, and several other regions in Quebec. The petitioners are calling on the House to support my motion, Motion No. 441, which we will vote on this evening.

They feel that it is important to simplify the regulations and that bureaucracy and red tape prevents their municipalities from taking action. The champions on the other side should wake up and realize that this motion would be a good thing for Canadians.

[Navigation Restrictions, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to close the debate on Motion No. 441, which aims to review the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations.

Many of my colleagues have raised some very interesting points, and I would like to clarify a few things.

The problem with these pleasure craft is a real one. No one is making it up. Since my election, this is one of the most frequent requests I receive. People want something to be done about these boats. Everyone said that it was up to the federal government and that nothing could be done. They would then raise the issue of a jurisdictional wrangle between the various levels of government.

In the end, after examining the navigation act, I figured that the only way to intervene in this context would be to work with the existing legislation, so that is the approach I used in Motion No. 441. The request to amend the regulations already exists. The only problem is that the bureaucracy is so cumbersome that people become discouraged before anything can actually be done. Also, we have to trust the people. Even in my riding, there are many lakes where the lakeshore residents have established voluntary codes of conduct and successfully agreed to exclude certain boats from those lakes.

However, one problem remains: this has no legal bearing, as long as the government refuses to change the regulations. A lakeshore resident who wants to breach a voluntary code can simply take his or her boat out on the lake. This person can take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court, and he or she would win, because no one can interfere with navigation. I figured that the best way to proceed would be to use a provision that already exists in the legislation. The government has been preaching for some time about eliminating red tape and simplifying bureaucracy, and this would be an excellent opportunity to do so, especially since it would benefit citizens directly.

My colleague talked about the situation on the Richelieu River, which I know very well. I have friends who live on that river. At night, some boats with huge V8 engines go right by the houses doing more than 100 km/h. You can hear them for five minutes. It is no surprise that a coalition of about 10 political bodies and organizations have asked the Minister of Transport to take action on the marine traffic on the Richelieu, claiming that the current process is too cumbersome. Clearly, there is a problem.

We do need to trust people. People who live on a lake and in the same community have many opportunities to calmly discuss and find a compromise that almost everyone can live with. There may be two or three stubborn people who will insist on doing what they want. However, the current process can drag on for years. It went on for 10 years in the case of the Columbia River wetlands.

I have heard from watershed groups and associations of waterfront property owners in Quebec. They told me that they were discouraged and had not even started the process because it was so complicated. I saw one municipality that submitted an application to change the regulations and was told that if it was missing the minutes of one meeting, a single document or the slightest bit of evidence that they had made announcements, the application would not even be considered. That is far from being democratic. We need to simplify the bureaucracy and red tape—

[Business of Supply, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there is an important aspect to this issue.

There are 46 municipalities in my riding of Laurentides—Labelle. The majority of them are small municipalities that are far from major highways. There are often no financial institutions in those areas. The banks have centralized their operations where it is the most cost-effective to consolidate services. There is not even an ATM in Mont-Saint-Michel, where I am from. The owner of the corner store helps people out and allows them to make a withdrawal with a debit card. People often live an hour away from their financial institution. When they have access to an ATM, it is most likely not their bank's ATM.

Could my colleague explain some of the problems that can cause?