Raynald Blais

[Jocelyn Massé, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it was with a heavy heart that we learned of the tragic death of a young student from the Magdalen Islands.

Last Saturday, Jocelyn Massé, aged 21, was travelling on a bus in Honduras with his girlfriend, Mélanie Poirier, when two armed robbers boarded the vehicle and opened fire, killing Mr. Massé.

An athlete, music lover and travel and adventure enthusiast, Jocelyn Massé loved life. He adored his family and had a great many friends. He was also very much in love with Mélanie.

Today, the entire community of the Magdalen Islands is in mourning and heartbroken over the loss of this young man who had such big plans for his future. The Bloc Québécois extends its deepest sympathies to his family, friends and Mélanie Poirier, the love of his life, to whom we wish much courage at this time.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I just want to take a moment at the outset to congratulate my colleague from Chambly—Borduas on his excellent speech. I represent an area where the issue of unemployment is a source of very serious concern. It is experienced daily. At present, plant workers are wondering how much longer they will be able to work. It is a matter of weeks. Money is sought to ensure that they will be eligible for employment insurance because they will not have accumulated enough weeks of work.

As our colleague from Chambly—Borduas demonstrated, the employment insurance issue is a much too vast and complicated issue to be resolved with a simple measure. Really, this is tantamount—and I would like to hear the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas on this—to trying to tackle poverty one chunk at a time. When we had time to deal with the issue, after the budget was brought down, the NDP went quiet. They did not participate in the debate on the poverty experienced by the unemployed and the problems faced by the regions. They did not get involved at all. Today, attempts are made to backtrack and try to take a piecemeal approach to dealing with the problem. I think that is a bad strategy and a bad idea. I would like to know what the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas thinks about that.

[Johanne Bécu, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Johanne Bécu of Chandler, who this morning received the Meritorious Service Cross, Civil Division.

In 1989, Ms. Bécu founded the Maison L'Éclaircie, Aide à la santé mentale, a community-based agency helping people with mental health problems and their family. This resource centre provides a support group, information sessions, a help line for people feeling suicidal or distressed and resources to help them overcome their problems.

Through Ms. Bécu's commitment to her community and her many projects, people with a disability can not only recover their self-esteem but return to society.

And so I would like to pay tribute to this woman, who has given of her time and energy so that people who are more vulnerable in our society can enjoy a better life.

Congratulations, Ms. Bécu. Our region needs people like you.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech given by the minister, and I want to thank him for being honest and plain-spoken. I do not know whether he realized that, at the start of his speech, he said in French, “promesses faites, promesses retenues”. I just want to remind him that when a promise is “retenue”, it means it is not kept.

That is exactly what the unemployed got with regard to EI: “promesses faites, promesses retenues”. That is exactly what happened, too, with regard to sharing the wealth. The riding I represent has many expectations about many things, in different areas. The motto here too is “promesses faites, promesses retenues”.

With regard to government transparency, the unfortunate conclusion is also “promesses faites, promesses retenues”. I repeat, in French, “retenir” means to forget and not to implement.

With regard to the fiscal imbalance, too, Quebec and the provinces are being strangled, “promesses faites, promesses retenues”.

I want to thank the minister for his honesty and give him the opportunity to tell us more about the reasons why many of the promises made by this Liberal government were retained and therefore not kept.

[Rail Transportation, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, two organizations, Dignité rurale and Vision Percé-Gaspé, recently presented me with a petition signed by more than 2,200 people concerned about the future of rail transportation in the Gaspé Peninsula.

For 15 years we have been living with a threat over our heads about the future of Via Rail's Chaleur route. The once daily service has been cut to three trips a week.

In 2004, the federal government asked Via Rail to reduce its operating costs and it has been confirmed that various scenarios were considered, including eliminating its service to the southern Gaspé Peninsula.

In the Gaspé Peninsula there is a close connection between passenger trains and freight trains, which rely on well-maintained tracks. Without adequate funding to maintain the Gaspé network, both services are threatened.

It is time to put an end to this suspense and for the federal Minister of Transport to tell us clearly and precisely his plans for the future of rail in the Gaspé Peninsula.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004, March 11th, 2005]

Just by chance.

[Roland Babin, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute in the House to one of my constituents, Roland Babin of Caplan.

At the recent gala honouring the region's volunteers, held at Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Mr. Babin was named 2004's volunteer of the year for Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands.

Despite being 75, Mr. Babin devotes 20 to 35 hours a week to volunteering with youth and seniors in his region. He has also been heavily involved in Caplan's Festi-Neige, where he sold a record number of tickets.

As the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I want to congratulate him on this honour. I hope he will continue his activities and that his achievements will serve as an example for all those who think that mutual assistance and cooperation no longer have a place in 2005.

[Canada Shipping Act, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his speech and his question. This gives me an opportunity to talk about what is happening in everyday reality. As hon. members know, when a roof is leaking it needs to be fixed or the entire house may be lost. When it comes to the Canadian Coast Guard—the analogy also applies to small craft harbours—the current situation is terrible.

In 2002, Fisheries and Oceans estimated—and the estimate is not mine. If it were mine or that of an independent external company, the figures would have been double or more—that $400 million was needed for repairs and restoration. We are not talking about building new facilities, but restoring old ones. The estimate was $400 million.

According to DFO figures, in 2004 and even in 2005, the figure has reached $500 million. The roof continues to leak, and the cost keeps going up. Repairs are increasingly large, and the situation is quite bad across the board.

I have already had an opportunity to talk about this a few times in committee and I will repeat, here in the House, what is happening in Grande-Vallée, in Saint-Georges-de-la-Malbaie in the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine or even in Percé. Percé is known for its beautiful rock with the hole in it. The wharf to the rock is falling apart. The wharf that enables people to visit Percé Rock is getting holes in it.

Such is the terrible situation in 2005. That is why, when money is announced, for whatever period of time, it may seem like a lot, but it does absolutely nothing to fix what is happening right now.

The situation is getting worse, even dangerous. It is scandalous. It is similar to the scandalous situation in the case of small craft harbours and what is going on with the Coast Guard, because the needs are so great. It is not by patching things up and providing band aid solutions that they are going to truly resolve the situation. They risk simply worsening the situation, as they are doing with the small craft harbours.

[Canada Shipping Act, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on Bill C-3 at third reading.

I cannot begin my speech without referring to some of the comments just made. With regard to the 1995 mistake—transferring responsibility from the Department of Transport to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans—I get the feeling that, 10 years later, they are going to correct the first mistake by making another one.

Here is the second mistake. Upon consideration, Bill C-3, obviously, is only an administrative change. The Canadian Coast Guard's problem is not administrative in nature, but rather due to a lack of consistency and funding. This is a major problem—I will have the opportunity to talk about this in detail during my speech—given its numerous responsibilities.

I do not get the feeling today that the government is behaving responsibly by introducing this purely superficial and administrative change. There is no attempt to get to the bottom of things and I will talk about this for the next few minutes.

I just want to remind the House why we think that this bill at third reading, in the end, presents no new solutions instead of doing what needs to be done. We have looked at documents published by the Library of Parliament, which simply say that the administrative bill clarifies the December 2003 transfer of powers for marine safety from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Department of Transport. It consolidates policy responsibility for all aspects of marine safety in Transport Canada. It improves the responsiveness, coherence and consistency of the marine regulatory framework in Canada. It enhances service delivery on marine matters for all stakeholders. It ensures that the roles and responsibilities of the government remain the same in whatever department they are found. It preserves the authorities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to carry out the operational role assigned to it. It ensures that the powers, duties and functions transferred from DFO to Transport Canada are unambiguous, in order to prevent disputes and it preserves the logic and coherence of the affected statutes.

Examining each of these elements or parameters, I can see, on the face of them, that we cannot support the bill as presented. It is purely and simply an administrative change that will do nothing to correct the situation.

The situation is as follows. In September 2000, the Canadian Shipowners Association wrote the following about the Coast Guard:

The Canadian Coast Guard provides a series of services which impact on the commercial fleet. The maintenance of aids to navigation, icebreaking services and dredging are all services utilized to some extent by CSA members. Faced with budget reductions, the Coast Guard has begun to introduce new charges for the delivery of all these services.

This has been going on for the past several years. The government has been irresponsible and has done absolutely nothing about the problem of charges to the shipping industry.

The Coast Guard began introducing new charges. The passage continues:

These new costs taken together amount to substantial new operating costs at a time when other transportation services have been able to drastically reduce costs through regulatory reforms and closure of facilities.

This refers to a situation that arose in 2000. As you will see, the situation persists, unfortunately.

New Coast Guard service fees are a national issue effecting users across the country. Together with western and Atlantic marine transportation industry representatives, the CSA participated in the National Marine and Industrial Coalition to provide a common approach to negotiations with the government.

The report continues:

In 1998, consultations were held on the Coast Guard's plans for icebreaking fees. A report of the Marine Advisory Board (MAB) recommended a uniform transit fee with a cap on the maximum number of chargeable transits—. The Coalition responded with a modified proposal. Following a series of meetings with Minister David Anderson and his officials, the Minister agreed to reduce the Coast Guard's target revenue for icebreaking by half. In addition, the Minister agreed to freeze charges at this level fort hree years—

The three-year freeze on fees also applies to charges for aids to navigation. CSA members have argued that the industry no longer requires all the services being offered by the Coast Guard, that efforts to reduce operation costs must increase and that these new costs will negatively impact industry competitiveness.

The Coast Guard re-introduced the dredging services fee in 1998 for one year. Originallyintroduced as a “interim fee” —

This is the Liberal government's usual tactic: interim fees, interim measures. We have heard more than enough of them in connection with employment insurance.

— for commercial ships in the St. Lawrence river in 1997, the fee was extended to September 1, 1999. The government also established an Advisory Committee to review this matter.

One might well call this a ghost committee. This was written back in 2000.

Now I will read an excerpt from Maritime Magazine , a shipping magazine. In its winter 2005 issue, editor Pierre Terrien updates the situation. This is in fact the heart of the problem and where Bill C-3 is needed. The bill number is of no importance, but what is important is some real responsibility with respect to the Coast Guard.

According to Mr. Terrien, the debate on Coast Guard cost recovery, already underway a number of years ago, has used up a lot of newspaper ink and a lot of energy. Even the Commissioner of the Coast Guard is opposed to this accursed federal policy—not my words, they are used in the article—but the only good thing about it is that it will bring together the various bodies concerned with defending and promoting shipping. It has also led to the creation of several coalitions that have brought together around the same table stakeholders from the industrial and manufacturing sectors as well as the usual spokespersons for the shipping sector.

This goes to show that there can be several sides—two and sometimes three—to an argument.

For the marine community, this pulling together of the forces in the field has proven to be the most appropriate change of the past decade, as it gave more consistency to its image and voice.

Nevertheless, this is an “accursed” policy. It is unfortunate to have to use such language, but we can clearly see that, as the years go by, this issue is definitely not progressing, far from it. It is not with the $276 million over five years recently announced by Fisheries and Oceans Canada that we can expect everything to be resolved.

Even Canadian Coast Guard Commissioner Adams acknowledged that an investment of $140 million per year would be required to properly upgrade the Coast Guard. We are not talking about luxuries here. We are not talking about ships that would look like luxury liners. We are talking about major investments, to the tune of $140 million per year, just to achieve at a decent level.

What was announced today for the Coast Guard is interesting. It may sound like a lot of money, but it is really $275 million over five years. Things being what they are, the dividing factor being a mathematical model that cannot be disproved, we realize that the amount being spent is very small in comparison with what is really needed. I think that, on this file, an administrative change will not successfully resolve the fundamental problem.

We are now at third reading. This bill amends four existing pieces of legislation, namely the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act. The enactment transfers powers, duties and functions from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister of Transport.

I will remind the hon. members that history shows what may be, at the end of the day, the Liberal approach. In 1995, the reverse happened: the powers, duties and functions of the Department of Transport were transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

And now the transfer is happening again. There may well be disputes. The government must make sure that the powers, duties and functions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans being transferred to the Department of Transport are clear so as to prevent disputes. Is that the case? I am not sure.

They are taking one step forward, one step back. They can pedal all they like, they are in neutral. In other words, they are marking time. Meanwhile, problems are piling up. In terms of not only marine safety but safety generally, it appears they are missing the boat. Because, with respect to needs—I repeat, because it is important to emphasize this—they announce a mere $275 million over five years, when the needs estimated by the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, Mr. Adams—I am willing to accept him as an expert in the field and someone who knows what is going on when he talks about the needs of Coast Guard services—amount to some $140 million per year.

As far as democracy is concerned, they are denying the existence of the parliamentary standing committee which issued a unanimous report on the Coast Guard a few years ago, in 2003. In the report, the committee recommends, among other things, the creation of an independent civilian federal agency. There are other recommendations, and I will read them.

I would like to say more about this unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, whose members, I remind the House, come from all political parties. In the end, in introducing Bill C-3, which is purely administrative and cosmetic, the government is completely ignoring this report.

The committee recommends among its 18 recommendations:

That funding to the Coast Guard be increased.

The report does not call for a cosmetic increase. The amount of $275 million over five years may look enormous, but five years goes by quickly, and this is clearly insufficient to meet the real needs.

The committee also recommended:

That the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Coast Guard, guarantee stable, long-term A-base funding for the Office of Boating Safety at a level fully sufficient for it to meet its responsibilities.

That the Canadian Coast Guard be governed by a new Canadian Coast Guard Act that would set out the roles and responsibilities of the Coast Guard.

That the government establish the Canadian Coast Guard as the lead federal agency among the several federal departments involved in marine pollution prevention.

That the Coast Guard be given all the necessary resources and powers to conduct surveillance and collect evidence necessary for the effective prosecution of contraventions.

That, prior to any decision to de-staff lightstations, affected communities and stakeholders be consulted.

That a renewed Coast Guard be established as an independent civilian agency; that the government make an immediate commitment—

This was in 2003.

—that the Canadian Coast Guard receive an injection of capital funding to pay for fleet renewal, upgraded and modernized shore-based infrastructure and the implementation of new technology.

To some extent, this is the context in which we now find ourselves, at third reading. It is the second time that I have risen in the House to address this issue. But for a few exceptions, my comments are essentially the same today. Indeed, the Coast Guard issue requires more than mere cosmetic or administrative changes. It requires significant improvements that are adequate, relevant and that meet existing needs.

It is important to meet those needs because, as members know, we are surrounded by three oceans. I am more familiar with one of these oceans. Since I come from the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and represent it, I know the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of St. Lawrence well.

I can say that, for the past number of years, when people think about the Coast Guard, the question that comes to mind is: when will the next cut be made? This is more or less the context in which we find ourselves now.

With respect to marine services, specifically marine safety and people who might perhaps experience problems at sea and so forth, it does not appear that the Canadian Coast Guard can truly fulfill its mandate. I am not the only one saying so. The fishers, industry stakeholders and even the commissioner of the Coast Guard, the big boss, are saying so too.

There are not enough ships and the Coast Guard's real needs are not being met. That is why, in a last-ditch effort, we are asking the House to vote against this bill and ensure that the current Liberal minority government goes back and does its homework.

Turning its back on its responsibilities and completely ignoring the fact that the Coast Guard requires so much more makes no sense and would result in another scandal to add to the Liberal Party's collection. Ensuring that real resources are allocated and that there is a real consistency in terms of responsibilities is a matter of respect and dignity. This problem cannot truly be resolved by tossing it back and forth between Transport Canada and DFO.

In conclusion, I want to say that the people of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the people who rely on the services of the Canadian Coast Guard, truly need real changes, not a superficial and administrative bill, to ensure that they have a Coast Guard able to protect them and improve on its services. For this reason, neither the marine industry nor the people and the fishers should have to pay the price. I hope too that they will not have to pay with their lives.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord on her speech and to thank her for drawing attention to what is going on, particularly in my riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, where those who could do a great deal in the battle against organized crime are no longer present. I will give the background on this. There used to be two RCMP detachments, one at Gaspé and the other on the Islands.

A year and a half ago, the detachment on the Islands become just a telephone connection to Gaspé. There is no local contingent. Situated as they are in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Magdalen Islands are becoming an ideal environment for organized crime. It is as if it has been advertised as an open house. An open house, an opportunity to take advantage of what I would term government nonchalance. I would also go so far as to say that these actions are irresponsible. With nine detachments gone, one can well wonder about those that are left. We do have an RCMP presence at Gaspé, but for how long?

This I think illustrates just what we have been hearing and seeing about the government's washing its hands of responsibility. We see this in its actions, or lack of action. I would like to hear the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord say more about the advantages of having an RCMP detachment since she still has one in her riding. Since laws are important to fighting crime, what we in the Bloc Québécois are proposing is to strengthen the law and change the burden of proof. That is very important and also leads us to examine the situation in order to see what we can do about organized crime.

I will take this opportunity, of course, to ask: what next after Magdalen Islands? Gaspé? And then what? That is the dangerous situation we are in right now.