Raynald Blais

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member's speech with much attention and interest. I am prompted to react to certain elements of it and to ask certain questions.

The last sentence of his speech was superb. However, the rest of his 17-minute speech made one wonder whether this government really wants transparency, really wants information to be distributed. The argument he presents is a desire to protect information from foreign countries and that relating to trade secrets, no more and no less. It is my impression that we are straying away from what we, as democrats, really want in terms of true transparency.

We want to take steps to ensure that this is a far better informed society and one in which we will be able to know more about what departments are doing with our money. Unfortunately, the examples are legion. As the hon. member pointed out, the Access to Information Act has not been revised for a very long time. Amendments are therefore very much in order. This must not, however, be done according to the conditions set by the government, since some serious questions can be asked about transparency and trust as far as it is concerned.

I would like to ask the hon. member to review for our benefit the real reasons behind our having an Access to Information Act. It must not be limited or overly amended. Judging from what he has said, the result will be to further hamper those who want the government to be both more transparent and more responsible.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not have any lessons to give to anybody when it comes to economic issues. In fact, he should redo his homework regarding what is going on back home, in the Gaspé and Magdalen Islands region. He really—and literally—missed the boat regarding fisheries, when he excluded part of the Gaspé region from the program that he just announced.

I want to go back to the real sadness that we should feel. This sadness is related to the existence of the sponsorship scandal. Considering that $250 million were spent in a shameful fashion, this situation is indeed a scandal. I refer the minister to the Gomery report, and more specifically to page 329. I would like to get his opinion on this excerpt, which is very clear:

Other politicians less directly involved in the Sponsorship Program did not hesitate to accept Mr. Lafleur’s hospitality.There was, throughout the period when sponsorship funds were being freely handed out by PWGSC, a sort of culture of entitlement—

This “culture of entitlement” is expressly mentioned in the Gomery report. It sounds like a Liberal culture “according to which persons enjoying Mr. Lafleur’s largesse apparently did not feel that there was anything wrong in being entertained by someone who was receiving, and hoped to continue to receive, obviously lucrative federal contracts”. This is clearly spelled out on page 329 of the Gomery report.

Let us hear the minister talk about the Gomery report, instead of trying to teach lessons to others, when he does not really know what he is talking about.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on the statements of the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada and to ask him some questions on the speech he just delivered. To me it sounds like he is in a panic.

When he talks about sadness when we are currently discussing a topic that was presented in this House by his own colleague from Bourassa, he is targeting the person who raised the question of privilege. The debate could have easily been on something else, given the chance.

The minister talks about sadness and wanting to teach others a lesson. I will humbly remind him that he should take a second look at his own work. Just recently he made a long awaited announcement on an initiative for the fisheries, an announcement he even postponed. In this initiative, he forgot—

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak, but the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was so inspiring that I want to raise two or three important points.

I feel like I am learning more about how the sovereign country of Quebec should behave in the future, especially when it comes to the protection of cultural property and international commitments. We should use today's debate to determine the responsibility of the country that Quebec will become in the coming years.

The other point involves the example of how the Government of Canada is currently shirking its responsibilities toward heritage lighthouses. I had the opportunity to speak on this matter.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie did indeed bring up the example of the Kyoto protocol, which we signed. However, it is one thing to talk about it and another to take action. We went through the process of writing up and signing a plan and formally promising action, but there seems to something missing in the application of said protocol.

As far as the heritage lighthouses are concerned, it is all well and good to say that cultural property must be protected, but, unfortunately, what we are seeing is quite the opposite. These cultural properties, these heritage lighthouses, have been so neglected that now we have to spend tens of millions of dollars simply to restore them. Then we could enjoy a cultural heritage property and present it as another tourist attraction, namely in my region.

I simply want to say to the House, to the hon. members who are currently listening and to those watching us on television that the speech by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was inspiring in many ways. His contribution today is a valuable one and allows us to look at the discussions we have here in a different way.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his comments, which, like those made this morning by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, are full of wisdom. It is extremely dangerous to swallow so-called miracle solutions and say that toughening up the law, beefing up security and increasing sentences will be enough to deal with offences and illegal acts.

My colleague's comments clearly show that we must address issues like this in stages. It is much more complex than one would think. Street racing is also a societal phenomenon. Why and how does it happen? I think awareness needs to raised by going to the heart and source of this harmful activity that can possibly take lives or cause problems stemming from injury or other things. Questions must also be asked.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate on the fact that cracking down is not a miracle remedy. Cracking down can make us truly lose sight of the intended purpose, which is to eliminate street racing. To do so, the best solution, the best way to overcome this, is to get rid of the problem at the source. In our society, illegal behaviour of this kind reflects a certain reality. I think society needs to respond to it in a more comprehensive way and not just with simple solutions such as increasing sentences.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. Some aspects of his speech are of greater interest to me, given what we heard in the speech from the Conservatives.

The hon. member from the Bloc Québécois did mention in his speech that there is a big difference between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives in terms of how they look at things. Right away, the Conservatives want to get tough. They believe that that is what danger calls for. But efforts have to be made in terms of prevention, education, information and so on. In his speech, the hon. member talked about the need to go further. The discretionary powers of judges have allowed this phenomenon to expand over time. It is spreading more and more in cities, but also in rural and other areas in Quebec.

I would like to hear the hon. member expand on the Conservative perspective, as compared to ours. As far as I am concerned, the Bloc Québécois has a much more balanced perspective. On this issue, the solutions reside not in extremes, but rather in taking action with respect to enforcement and awareness. We have to give police forces and the judiciary tools to curb street racing.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to day to speak to Bill S-14. What I have just heard clearly illustrates and underscores the bulk of what I want to say.

I would have loved to have been able to indicate that we are in favour of Bill S-14 and that we could move ahead on it, since the principle seems a good, worthwhile one, designating heritage lighthouses and so forth.

However, when we look at things more closely, there is a different take on this. The bill summary brings this out, and the Speaker's ruling adds still more weight to my position. The summary reads as follows:

This enactment protects heritage lighthouses within the legislative authority of Parliament by providing a means for their designation as heritage lighthouses; by providing an opportunity for public consultation before authorization is given for the removal, alteration, destruction, sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of a designated heritage lighthouse; and by requiring that designated heritage lighthouses be reasonably maintained.

So we can see that there is actually there is a means for designation in the bill. But as for new money for the lighthouses that have been abandoned for several decades, well just forget it. This shows clearly why we cannot support Bill S-14. Even if the principle is valid, there are horror stories, to some extent, about heritage lighthouses, which I will discuss over the next few minutes. Consider, for example, what happened to the lighthouses in Madeleine-Centre in the riding of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Clearly, then, the best way to describe Bill S-14 would be as a red herring, which is a way to divert attention from what is happening right in front of us. I am convinced, entirely convinced, that Bill S-14 is a perfect example of federal downloading, this time in the issue of lighthouses.

We could also talk about the port infrastructures of small craft harbours and about other facilities. Ultimately, we realize the approach the government has adopted in recent years, in other words, it is abandoning infrastructure such as ports and small craft harbours. Lighthouses have met the same fate. After several decades, the ready-made solution is to build fences. That is the solution they have found for small craft harbours in a state of disrepair. That is also the solution they have found for lighthouses, which, really, could very well be a source of economic diversification.

We know full well that lighthouses no longer serve their original purpose and have not for some time now. Not, in fact, since 1970. The federal government decided to abandon lighthouses as they stood then. However, we see that, since 1970, abandoning them has been the only thing that happened with regard to lighthouses. This abandonment has led to stories such as the one from Madeleine-Centre in the riding of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I was the assistant to the member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for several years, starting in 2000. One of the files we worked on was the Madeleine-Centre lighthouse.

The government, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport came up with only one solution for the lighthouses, which were very useful at one time, which were used for vessel safety and also could have been used to diversify regional economies in regions like mine, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

The only solution they found was to let things slide and that has had some terrible consequences.

I have letters showing that this heritage infrastructure was very dear to the people of Madeleine-Centre. It was also felt that this was an opportunity to create jobs for the people of this community and help them take charge of their lives. I do not think that having this goal or vision is a problem. To take charge, they need support in the form of financial assistance. There was no support in this case.

I have letters that date back to 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2003 stating the only response given by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in this matter. The people want to take charge of their lives and have some control over their future. Unfortunately, the only response they get from the government is along the lines of wait and see because there is not enough money. We are left empty-handed like we were before.

The Madeleine-Centre site also needs to be decontaminated. It is all well and good to maintain a lighthouse in the hope of being able to use it one day as a tourist attraction. However, the use of lighthouses did cause some contamination. The sites therefore need to be decontaminated.

It could take tens of thousands of dollars to fix up the Madeleine-Centre lighthouse. Does the government know what it would cost to decontaminate the site? Some $2 million. That is the real situation. This is where we get to see how the minority Liberal government operates or, rather, does not operate, quite simply, because it is not assuming its responsibilities. It knows very well that these lighthouses involve costs. Fixing them up will cost one amount, decontaminating them will cost another. I think the Madeleine-Centre lighthouse is a fairly good example of the cost involved.

Why are we skeptical when a new bill like S-14 is introduced? Another argument may be used. The member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia mentioned it, and other MPs may mention it as well. We wonder: does the government really want to set up a board simply to limit the possible designation of heritage lighthouses? In Quebec, some 40 lighthouses could be designated heritage lighthouses. Does the government really want to establish a board, which, after public consultation, after deliberating, receiving petitions and so on, in other words, having bought some time by creating a diversion, will decide in the end that only some lighthouses qualify for the designation or for the purposes the government has for them? There is no indication what a heritage site or a heritage lighthouse is.

To my way of thinking, the right thing for the current Liberal minority government to do would be to fix up the lighthouses we have in Quebec. I think doing so would send a message that some responsibility is being taken for these facilities, which they abandoned in the 1970s, nearly 30 years ago. At least, that is what happened in regions such as Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands.

Today, for this reason as well, the message of Quebec's sovereignty is being heard loud and clear, and it will get louder and clearer tomorrow.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot remain calmly silent about the statements just made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

We have been given many opportunities to address the Fraser River salmon matter. The responses we received yesterday, during the minister's appearance before the committee, are indicative of the fact that neither the government nor the department has anything to be proud of in this matter.

I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary. What measures is the department taking to deal with the situation in 2005? The problem is that the Fraser River salmon is endangered, although not to the same degree as other threatened species. It is endangered for many reasons, in particular, the inaction or lack of good management by the department, which hesitates before taking any real action.

I do not get the impression that any immediate, concrete measures are planned for 2005. I will give the parliamentary secretary a chance to prove otherwise. I want him to give us a detailed response on the measures in order to reassure us about this situation. So far the responses have been rather vague, just like the action. The situation will likely not improve and an umpteenth report on the same issue might announce the total disappearance of salmon in the Fraser River. I want to give the parliamentary secretary the opportunity to explain what measures will be taken in 2005.

[La révolte des pêcheurs, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on May 1 in Rivière-au-Renard, I had the pleasure of attending a dramatic reading of the Maurice Joncas play La révolte des pêcheurs , directed by Francine Guimond.

This play based on historical facts re-enacts the terrible experiences of a group of fishermen in the Rivière-au-Renard area of Gaspé in 1909. They had had enough of being exploited by the Jersey merchants, and rose up in revolt.

The Liberal MP of the day panicked and sent two Canadian navy frigates as scare tactics. Soldiers came ashore at Pointe-à-la-Renommée in the dark of night and searched homes at gunpoint. They tracked people into the woods and arrested a number of them.

William Savage, Édouard Riffoux, Jos Tapp, Urbain Chrétien, Aurèle Élément and many others have gone down in history as the ones who organized this uprising.

I salute the courage and tenacity of these fishermen who stood up to the injustice and exploitation to which they were being subjected. Yet all they wanted was a modicum of freedom and respect.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, since I have only three minutes, you will readily understand that I will not have time to address the whole issue. However, I will have time to at least send a message to the Liberal government about purchasing international credits.

First, as was eloquently stated in the speech by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, the Bloc is not opposed to the purchase of international credits under the application of the protocol. However, we do have two reservations. There could be more, but two are particularly important.

First, the purchase of international credits must not be at the heart of the federal strategy, which must instead focus on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within Canada. This point is vital.

Second, the federal government must not itself buy credits with taxpayers' money. You will readily understand that we are speaking as proud Quebeckers on this point. Taxpayers' money should absolutely not be used to pay polluters. This would benefit the heavily polluting industries, such as the nuclear industry in Ontario and the petroleum industry in Alberta.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about something that affects me particularly closely, the Belledune incinerator in New Brunswick. It is very near Chaleur Bay. This file also indicates how the Liberal government behaves in environmental matters.

It presents action plans. Period. A look at them reveals them to be a rather pale green, as in the intervention regarding the Bennett file at Belledune. At the moment, a very important decision is expected on what is to happen in this matter. Three judges will decide whether to call a halt to the process leading to a review in the matter of Bennett and Belledune.

In recent months, a federal court judge called a halt to the process that had begun, but 18 months after the fact, while it was eagerly awaited in the Chaleur Bay community and the Gaspé. It is in fact very important for this community.

The government delayed, threatening the future of an entire community, which is struggling with a matter that could cause harm, considerable harm, if it proceeds.

I will take the liberty of—