House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 44% of the vote.
Canada Post January 31st, 2014
Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Laurentides—Labelle, the communities of Lac-du-Cerf, Sainte-Anne-du-Lac, Saint-Faustin-Lac-Carré, Rivière-Rouge, Amherst and Chute-Saint-Philippe are concerned about the closure of Canada Post offices. Six municipalities have already passed resolutions demanding that postal services continue.
Will the government listen to the people and elected officials in Laurentides—Labelle and work to find solutions instead of taking an axe to public services?
Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act January 29th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I do not share that vision. I find it amusing that two of my colleagues opposite mentioned Gildan.
Gildan does not export pork or potatoes. It exports jobs. Gildan was one of the only profitable textile factories in Montreal that was still successful. Now, it is going to become a mere distribution centre with everything being made in countries such as Honduras.
I doubt that the astronomical salaries those companies pay in Honduras are more than a couple of dollars a day because that is the international standard.
I have a feeling that there is still a chance that we will lose and export jobs. International aid, now disguised as something else, will serve to repair the damage caused by mining companies.
In any case, I am wondering if the member thinks it is profitable to export jobs to Honduras.
Respect for Communities Act January 27th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I do not have the knowledge that the hon. member for Victoria does. I am not a lawyer, but I still have questions. Why would a government insist on systematically provoking the courts, scoffing at the Supreme Court and all the other courts that have been consulted in this matter? It makes no sense. Perhaps my explanation is a little cynical, but it is the Conservatives' strategy to undermine the credibility of the justice system because they will be facing other similar cases this year. They will have to follow up on other rulings. Boldly challenging the Supreme Court with a bill that does not work and will again be challenged undermines the credibility of the courts. It creates a sort of permanent crisis in which they can always pass any law arbitrarily, with the minister making the decision at the end of the day.
Respect for Communities Act January 27th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, when my colleague talks about people who suffer from addictions, I note that she refers to them as if they were persons. They are indeed human beings.
On the other side of the House, it appears that they wish to take away their status as human beings by using terms such as “addict”. If we can show compassion for a mayor who smokes crack and gets drunk on bourbon at City Hall, we should also show a little bit of concern for people who have taken a wrong turn somewhere in their lives and who perhaps really want to overcome their drug addiction, instead of just giving press conferences.
Respect for Communities Act November 18th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain something to me. When a person is judged differently depending on whether he is the mayor of a major city, a very powerful person, or a person who is very marginalized by a health problem such as addiction, it is impossible to apply the concept of law and order. At that point it becomes the concept of law and order for all the others.
Navigation Restrictions November 8th, 2013
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the issue is with the spirit of the regulations.
In order to amend the regulations, the applying municipality must prove beyond any doubt that all other options have been attempted. That implies consulting dozens of stakeholders. It would also require tremendous resources. A town of 1,500 people cannot undertake willy-nilly a process that could take years. It would need to retain legal counsel, which is resource-intensive. Worse still, the solutions it would find would never have any legal value. If the vast majority of people who live by a lake agree to impose a restriction, a single person can disobey the order and ride his 300-horsepower motorboat on a lake no bigger than this chamber. That is the problem. The process is too cumbersome and needs to be simplified. I am not saying it should be trivialized, but simplified in a way that communities would have a real chance of using that piece of legislation that already exists and that has already been used in hundreds of cases all across Canada, including some involving lakes in my own riding.
Navigation Restrictions November 8th, 2013
I will do him one better, Mr. Speaker. All the requirements to amend the regulations are set out in the 20-page guide.
The process can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and some of the smaller municipalities do not have that kind of money. The process can be drawn out over several years, as in the examples I cited.
This is a virtual right. We are used to the Conservatives granting virtual rights.
In the real world, it is impossible to exercise. Discouragement sets in before the process even begins.
Navigation Restrictions November 8th, 2013
moved:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, following consultations with provinces, territories, municipalities and First Nations, carry out a review of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations with the objective of facilitating and accelerating the process allowing local administrations to request restrictions regarding the use of vessels on certain waters in order to improve how waters are managed, public safety and the protection of the environment.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to move Motion No. 441, which aims to carry out a review of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations.
At present, there is nothing to limit the right to navigate on our lakes. Motion No. 441 calls on the federal government to review the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations in order to provide municipalities with a faster, more predictable, more effective tool to manage bodies of water located in their territory, whether to improve how waters are managed, or enhance public safety and the protection of the environment.
This motion is very important for rural communities across Canada, especially those located beside a lake. In my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, and elsewhere, municipalities come up against considerable challenges when they try to manage their bodies of water better. The municipalities are close to their citizens and are well positioned to act on their behalf. That is why we believe that the current process needs to be streamlined, so that communities can have the tools they need to improve how waters are managed, and enhance public safety and the protection of the environment.
I hope that my colleagues will support this motion. This need not be a partisan issue. This would really have a positive impact on all Canadian municipalities. At first glance, Motion No. 441 might seem complex, so allow me to explain it in greater detail.
As we know, the Constitution Act, 1867 gives Parliament the power to legislate on matters related to navigation. Although the provinces have jurisdiction over riverbanks and shorelines, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over shipping and recreational boating.
Under the 2008 Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, whose enabling legislation is the Canada Shipping Act, it is possible to set out and enforce restrictions on boating on a waterway. The regulations allow for a series of restrictions to be enforced, to be listed in one of its schedules. For instance, there are restrictions on power-driven or electrical propulsion vessels, speed limits on entire waterways or at least limits to the size of motors, as well as guidelines for water skiing activities.
Under section 4 of the regulations, a municipality can, through the provincial government, ask the federal government to designate a body of water and add restrictions. To do so, local authorities must comply with the procedure established by Transport Canada in the Local Authorities' Guide to Boating Restriction Regulations. The problem is that the process described in the guide is extremely long, complex and costly.
The process is explained in a 20-page document. It requires local authorities to follow a complicated process that involves, among other things, holding a three-step public consultation, exploring non-regulatory alternatives and applying for a restriction on the body of water in question, as well as a complex review process that meets government requirements.
A number of Canadian municipalities, and also environmental groups and experts in the field, have expressed their displeasure with this process. They say that the slowness of Transport Canada's process and the guide's requirements make it very difficult, if not impossible, to request boating restrictions. These requirements include a wide range of stakeholders who must be consulted, as well as a detailed review of all the alternatives. This means that regulations can only be a last resort.
According to the Regroupement des associations pour la protection des lacs et cours d’eau des Hautes-Laurentides, several municipalities became discouraged and gave up before the end of the process.
In speaking with various stakeholders, I learned that in many cases municipalities just decided to withdraw from this administrative process.
In some cases, the battle lasted for years. For example, let us take the application for restrictions on power boats in the Columbia River wetlands in British Columbia. The efforts to restrict navigation have been going on for close to 15 years. Following a judicial process undertaken in 1998, an official application for an administrative restriction was submitted in 2002. To this day, only two of the three sections of the Columbia River have been regulated. It is unthinkable. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Ellen Zimmerman and the whole Wildsight team for their hard work.
In my riding of Laurentides—Labelle, municipalities such as Nominingue have been preparing such an application for three years. The length and complexity of the process may have got the better of waterfront property owners. They wonder how boats with 350-horsepower engines can be allowed on a 0.85 km2 lake.
Given such a void, municipalities are turning to voluntary codes of ethics to better control boating activities on their lakes. While we support such codes, they rely solely on the people's goodwill. Since these codes do not have force of law, anyone can ignore them and invoke his right to navigate.
We believe that a review of the regulatory process and resources allocated to its management could, in the short term, help municipalities better control the use of motorized vessels on bodies of water. Streamlining the process for enforcing the regulations would improve how waters are managed, the protection of the environment, and public safety and resolve many local disputes over the use of lakes and waterways. Motion No. 441 proposes such a review. A proper review must necessarily be conducted in consultation with the provinces, territories, municipalities and first nations. The use of existing legislation and regulations prevents jurisdictional disputes.
It is important to note that the idea is not to prevent pleasure boating. On the contrary, I am an avid fisherman and could not do without my time on the water. However, I firmly believe that, in order to retain this right to navigation, it is vital that waterways be properly managed by local communities. After all, they are the ones who have to put up with the inconveniences.
In my many discussions with various stakeholders, three main aspects came up over and over again: social peace through better municipal control, greater environmental protection and less red tape. I will quickly explain these three points.
As stated in the summary of the regulatory impact analysis, in 2008, the increase in waterway activity led to an increase in disputes between waterway users. Local administrations reacted by asking for restrictions on navigation.
However, since the entry into force of the regulations, municipalities have faced the same problems. The 2008 regulations, in their current form, are inadequate. I have too often witnessed situations where poor waterway management has created conflict among constituents in my riding.
We believe that municipalities should have easier access to a measure that exists only in theory. They know the people in their municipalities and are well positioned to ensure social peace.
This motion is also important because it will allow municipalities to better protect the environment. I do not feel the need to explain why power-driven vessels can be harmful to the environment if they are not appropriate for the type of lake on which they navigate.
On some of the more fragile lakes, larger vessels can cause significant shoreline erosion, increase the presence of algae and aquatic plants and cause premature aging.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that the current process needs to be simplified. Since the government claims to advocate decentralization and says it wants to cut red tape from the federal regulatory system, it seems to me that this would be a good place to do that. The Conservatives have decimated so many laws that I have lost track. Why not streamline the process in an area where cutting red tape would actually benefit people?
The current regulatory framework shows that the system is slow and inefficient. It is about time we changed how it works.
I could go on for quite some time about the advantages of this motion, but I would like to share some of the feedback we have received over the past few months. All of my colleagues should support Motion No. 441.
Over 40 municipalities have each indicated their support for this motion. Several watershed committees and associations have expressed an interest in being involved in or represented during future consultations about this issue.
The Fédération québécoise des municipalités has gone even further than our motion does. It passed a resolution stating that the provinces and/or the municipalities should have the power to set navigation standards and rules.
Moreover, the Regroupement des organismes de bassins versants du Québec, a coalition of watershed associations across the province, supports the approach suggested in the motion as a way of better managing vessel restrictions on the bodies of water they deal with.
In addition, the Quebec chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society applauded the motion, which they say is a simple and practical solution for managing waterways, particularly for smaller communities that do not have the resources to handle the current approach.
Renaissance Brome Lake, a local watershed committee, considers this initiative to be critical to the protection and appropriate use of waterways.
In closing, I would like to say that we should support Motion No. 441 because it is critical to faster, more predictable, more efficient management of waterways from a waterway management, public safety and environmental protection perspective, not to mention for social harmony.
That is why I am asking my colleagues to support Motion No. 441.
Petitions November 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House six petitions signed by people in my riding and elsewhere in Canada. The petitioners are calling on the House to adopt my motion, Motion No. 441, which will be debated today. It aims to simplify the process for obtaining restrictions on navigation on lakes and waterways.
Respect for Communities Act November 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her brilliant speech. The attention to detail she brings to her work is an inspiration to all members.
We face a rather philosophical question. On the one hand, we see how easily the Conservatives show compassion and understanding towards powerful people who take drugs, act like deviant alcoholics and make death threats. We see them cry and get all worked up for these poor powerful people. On the other hand, when it comes to ordinary citizens in need, they show no compassion at all.
I would like my colleague to expand on that.