Raynald Blais

[Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, October 23rd, 2006]

There are 17.

In my opinion, that is also the case for this bill. I understand and believe that it is important to bolster our system because of terrorism. That being said—and my colleague mentioned this in his speech—we must be careful that this does not lead to unfortunate situations such as those experienced by Maher Arar. Perhaps others have had similar experiences.

I would like the member to comment on the ideological winds that we hear, feel and sense coming from the Conservative minority government. It is fortunate that they are in the minority.

[Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup on his speech to which I listened with great interest. I would like to take this opportunity to ask him a question about the ideological winds that are blowing these days in this House with the minority Conservative government. Of the 30 or so bills introduced by the government, a dozen concern law and order.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 18th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to create an independent employment insurance fund, and I think it is appropriate to introduce this bill today.

With the creation of this independent fund, workers' and employers' contributions will benefit the unemployed alone. The government will no longer be able to use the fund surpluses to finance its own activities.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Wilbert Coffin, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years have passed since Mr. Wilbert Coffin was hanged, convicted of the murders of three American hunters in Gaspésie. Mr. Coffin's family has maintained his innocence since that time, pointing out that the Crown never produced any direct evidence during the trial and that political interference was a factor.

After many years of waiting, the federal justice minister has finally examined the Coffin family's legitimate request to re-open the file.

Mary Coffin-Stewart—Wilbert Coffin's sister—, Jim Coffin—Wilbert Coffin's son—and many other family members are here in Ottawa today. I would like to assure them that they are not alone in their quest for justice. They are very honourable and courageous for taking on this important challenge.

The Bloc Québécois is proud and honoured to support the Coffin family in its request for a judicial review concerning Wilbert Coffin.

[October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for putting a stop to this string of statements which, unfortunately, reflect the insensitivity of this government towards what coastal communities and fisheries are going through.

When people are faced with a crisis, the first thing we expect from a responsible government is to acknowledge that there is indeed a crisis.

But when the government vehemently denies the existence of this crisis, removes the exclusive nature of a program that could have helped fisheries and decides that subsidies will now replace loans, it comes up with an inadequate solution that completely ignores the problem in the fishing industry.

This is why I am going to give the hon. member one last chance to get back on track and to recognize that there is indeed a crisis in the fisheries and that we need an adequate and specific program for that industry, not a program that is lost among other ones.

[October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few days, I have had the opportunity to ask a relatively simple question that is nevertheless a heartfelt plea concerning the region I represent and the portfolio I am responsible for: fisheries. This is the reality of the situation.

My question was for the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Unfortunately, his answer was anything but satisfactory, and I hope that the member for Beauport—Limoilou, who is preparing her response to this adjournment debate, can shed some light on the very concrete reality that fisheries sectors, such as lobster, crab, groundfish, shrimp and pelagic species, need concrete, serious help from the federal government.

I am sure you will agree that the federal government is responsible for fisheries. We should therefore automatically be hearing from the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec that real help is on the way for this sector in particular, which is experiencing its own unique problems.

Last year a program was announced by the Liberal government, but it did not respond to all the problems in a concrete manner. Nonetheless, at least it gave a response, which was circumstantial in a way, but also specific to the fishery and covered the regions in particular, the Gaspé and Magdalen Islands region and the North Shore region. You will agree that these two regions in Quebec are affected by the fisheries. It was entirely natural for the government to have these regions in its sights for providing assistance.

A $34 million subsidy was allocated over five years. It was a done deal. In the five-year program announced last year, we can presume there is still a lot of money left. We would have been satisfied or, at least, we would have been grateful if this new government, which fortunately is in a minority, also had a little sensitivity to the fisheries.

Unfortunately, we see this story a lot differently because the answer from the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec was that programs would just be recycled; six new programs were announced without new money and they completely left out the fishery and the forestry sectors.

The fishery sector was very specifically left out. As for the $34 million over five years, previously reserved for companies or projects that would help these people in crisis, it has been dropped.

It is for this reason that I am saying that the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou need not present us with these programs again because it would be extremely disappointing to the people of the region that I represent and to people in the fisheries in general.

[Petitions, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on a matter highly important to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and that is small craft harbours. In some cases, urgent attention is required. Hundreds of people in my riding, specifically in the Saint-Georges-de-la-Malbaie area in the municipality of Percé, are urgently asking that we repair the Saint-Georges-de-la-Malbaie wharf.

[Economic Development, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for Canada economic development for Quebec recently announced a new program, with no new money, to the detriment of coastal communities that depend on the fishing industry.

In 2005, the fishing communities economic development initiative for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and the North Shore had a budget envelope of $34 million over five years. This has now disappeared.

Does the minister responsible for Canada economic development consider that there is no longer any problem in the fisheries sector and that this justifies the disappearance of $34 million in specific aid for this sector?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 27th, 2006]

First of all, I wish to pay tribute to my colleague who just spoke. I think that he is putting us back on the right track as opposed to what we heard previously from the member for Outremont.

Second, I would like to ask a very simple question. Who did the NDP, the Conservatives or the Liberals consult in Quebec? I am under the impression, from what the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives are saying, that they did not consult anyone in Quebec. Or, if they did, they were not listening.

I would like my colleague to comment on this.

[Fisheries and Oceans, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has arbitrarily allowed fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador to take an additional 7,000 tonnes of shrimp, causing prices in Quebec to tumble. In 2001, the minister said that Quebec should not be allowed additional fish quotas until the hydroelectricity dispute between Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec had been settled.

Is the minister's incomprehensible decision not based on the same half-baked strategy he quoted in 2001?