Jean-Yves Roy

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-14, an act providing for controls on the export, import or transit across Canada of rough diamonds and for a certification scheme for the export of rough diamonds.

First, I would like to say that I am pleased to have this opportunity, because in the riding of Matapédia—Matane, we have a business that specializes in the cutting of diamonds. I would like to explain how that company was created and the problems that it encountered in the process. It had absolutely no possibility of finding diamonds in Canada, despite the fact that Canada produces diamonds and has diamond mines.

It was the same problem when the time came to train the company's staff. It was absolutely impossible to find diamonds in Canada, even though we are a producer. This situation caused a great deal of problems, both in the training of employees and in the setting up of the company which, fortunately, managed to begin operations. I must say that there was very little cooperation on the part of the federal government regarding the establishment of the company and the training of its employees. On the contrary, the government made things harder for the company.

I am pleased to address this bill, because we agree with it and particularly with its objectives. This bill seeks to set up an international certification process to avoid situations where profits generated by the sale of diamonds are used in conflicts, particularly in African countries. My colleague mentioned a few of these countries, including Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia and Sierra Leone.

The problem is that diamonds are sold under various covers and that the proceeds from their sale is used by certain organizations to buy arms for terrorist activities. This has the effect of destabilizing the economy and the political and social situation in some countries.

Why does the Bloc Quebecois support this bill? I will mention the main reasons.

First, because of the atrocities perpetrated with the money from conflict diamonds. All this has been very well documented over many years, except that, as in many cases, governments do not react until the situation blows up in their face, until there is an international scandal. This is what is happening with this government. While being aware of very serious situations, it waited a long time to react; it should have acted much sooner and started years ago taking steps to resolve this problem. I am referring to diamond trading. Most of us are consumers of these goods, which may be described as blood diamonds.

The other reason is that we felt it was imperative and absolutely necessary to react, and action should have been taken sooner, to resolve conflicts in the countries involved, particularly in South Africa.

Without such a process, diamond consuming countries, including Canada, are financing the atrocities taking place in these countries. Unless a control scheme is put in place for diamond imports and exports, we will, as citizens, be contributing to financing conflicts, revolutions, atrocities, belligerents using any means available to seize power in these countries.

The Bloc Quebecois believes we have a social and ethical responsibility to move forward on this issue. Years ago, and I emphasize this, we should have become aware of what we were doing and made sure this kind of trade stopped.

Obviously, the bill before us is a step forward, a very small one however. I am wary of the steps this government takes. With respect to Kyoto, for example, we were assured over the past year that it would be ratified and finally implemented. We eventually realized that ratification was being postponed from one year to the next, one month to the next, one week to the next.

Naturally, if the government takes the same approach to Bill C-14, passing it in the House but then dragging its feet, while working out details with diamond importing industries, we will once again find ourselves wasting our time, as usual, with this government.

What is it that has finally woken up the government? I have already referred to this. Why is it that it is reacting today? Why is it that the government, which was after all aware of what was going on in the countries in question, did not react earlier? I have said already, and say again, it is because the international media, the NGOs, which were aware of the situation, have succeeded in raising the government's awareness of the need to be part of the Kimberley process and because of them that it has finally decided to bring forward a bill to solve the situation.

I would like to quote from a Partnership Africa Canada document, which reads as follows:

In 2000, the international diamond industry produced more than 120 million carats of rough diamonds with a market value of US $7.5 billion.

It is hard to imagine what $7.5 billion represents. I do not think my colleague can manage to do so, having never had her hands on $7.5 billion. So it is very hard for a taxpayer to imagine, but it is a huge sum.

Continuing the quotation:

At the end of the diamond chain this bounty was converted into 70 million pieces of jewelry worth close to US $58 billion. Of total world production, rebel armies in Sierra Leone as well as in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are estimated by De Beers to traffic in about 4%. Other estimates place the number higher.

De Beers is, as we know, the Dutch industry that controls the diamond industry.

This 4% figure they give for trafficking is a very conservative one. It means that these rebel forces currently control over 4% of the total world diamond production, and they have a very specific objective for doing so: to obtain weapons to use against the governments in power.

This, in my opinion, constitutes a pretty substantial share of the world diamond trade. When we say 4% of $7.5 billion, this means that hundreds of millions are being used to purchase weapons to kill people and, in the end, to try to overthrow governments. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the present government, despite being very much aware of the situation, took years to react.

Now, there is also the way one reacts. I referred to one industry in particular and what was happening in our region. When a business is set up and this business cannot even find suppliers within Canada in spite of the fact that Canada is a diamond producing country, this just does not make sense. At one time or another, this business from Matane, in my riding, could have had in hand diamonds from the countries in question, which I would describe as contraband diamonds or something of the sort.

I wish we would go a little further, and this government would take the initiative of going a little further than what is proposed in Bill C-14. I wish the government would take the lead internationally and raise public awareness about the realities of the diamond industry.

It should make it clear to the public in Canada and Quebec that, when people buy diamonds, it might be a good idea to ask where they are from, and the jeweller should be able to tell what country, what mine and even what company they come from. In other words, there should be traceability within the diamond industry. This is to some extent the intent of the bill, but there is a need to go a little further.

To conclude, the bill will not resolve the entire problem. It will not resolve the problem in Sierra Leone and other countries. Besides the problem with the rebel army and the government army fighting one another, there is a poverty problem, an underdevelopment problem, and this may be the most serious problem.

As we know, these past few years, the federal government has dramatically cut international assistance. We recently learned of plans to increase international assistance funding, but even this increase will not make up for all the cuts made. The federal government's commitment should therefore go a little further in terms of international development, and poverty reduction, particularly in African countries.

This concludes my remarks on Bill C-14.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague who talked about the homeless. Maybe we need to remind her that seniors account for a large number of the homeless in our big cities, and that their number keeps increasing. While there are homeless young people, there are also homeless seniors.

I have not seen anything in the throne speech that would improve the way the government distributes the guaranteed income supplement. In the last few months, before Parliament was reconvened, we heard a lot about it. Many older low-income people did not have access to the guaranteed income supplement, partly because the forms were very hard to fill out and partly because the government had sometimes failed to contact the people who were eligible. In every region of Canada, some of the poorest people were being denied the guaranteed income supplement.

Does my colleague think that the government should consider full retroactive payment for those entitled to the guaranteed income supplement who did not get it?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell my hon. colleague that, at present, the federal government has withdrawn completely from the regions. This is particularly true in my region, and I know it is also true in his.

This government has withdrawn from just about every program. The economic development programs currently available are totally inadequate.

In terms of economic development, to expect us to meet the same criteria in St. John's, Newfoundland, or in my region as in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, is totally unacceptable. We do not have the same economic structure in our regions. It is completely different from that of Toronto or Montreal. Yet, the same criteria are applied. It makes no sense.

The regions are said not to have projects, but that is a fallacy. There are thousands of projects, but they cannot qualify because of the different economic structure and the criteria that are applied. Should the government decide to take action, I do wish for my hon. colleague's sake that it will make for a better country.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Had I had a little more time, perhaps I would have talked about what I call the right to live in the regions.

The federal government has totally abandoned the regions, particularly with regard to transportation infrastructures, which used to be its responsibility. It has turned over ports and airports to municipalities and corporations. At this time, many of these infrastructures are in very bad shape. This approach on the part of the federal government has a negative impact on all regions.

I think that the throne speech should have contained at least one sentence saying something like: “The government recognizes the right to live in the regions. Living in the regions is not a privilege, it is a right. It is very important for the economic survival of Quebec as well as the rest of Canada that the regions be occupied, that people live there and have access to adequate services”.

As a regional journalist commented following the Speech from the Throne, “We have had it with being offered the minimum in the regions. What we want is the same quality of life, the same services available elsewhere in Canada, particularly in large urban centres”.

We are not asking for fancy shows. We are asking for the same services, for instance decent transportation services, which we no longer have. What we want is for the federal government to maintain its infrastructures, to take its responsibilities and maintain these infrastructures, so that we can live in our regions.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Repentigny for his excellent speech, particularly as far as official languages and the francophones who are directly affected by the policies of the present government are concerned. I should perhaps say who are not affected, or who are not sufficiently supported by the present government policies.

It would have been excellent if my colleague had been the one to write the throne speech. Judging by the way he gave his speech, he would certainly have been able to add some very positive and necessary elements, including some things for our regions.

I took the time to look at the previous throne speech, not just the one of September 30, 2002. What I saw was that basically what they served up to us on September 30 was almost the mirror image of the previous one.

What does that mean? Probably that the government has not managed to put into practice what it proposed to us two years ago, particularly as far as the regions are concerned.

I can characterize the throne speech as totally remarkable, but remarkable in a negative way. It is remarkable for what it does not contain, what it omits, what it leaves out, the non-presence of large sectors of our society, the regions in particular.

This speech contains absolutely nothing about the regions, their problems, the phenomenon by which the wealth of our society is concentrated increasingly in the major centres.

I found about a dozen points on which the government could have taken action to help the regions. But the impression one gets from this throne speech is one of a greater focus on what I would call the major centres, or when infrastructure is involved, the small centres. That is one example.

I would like to start by talking about child poverty. In 1989, if memory serves, the House adopted a unanimous resolution to fight child poverty. In each and every throne speech since 1989, particularly 1993 and thereafter, the government has told us “We are going to fight child poverty so that it becomes less acute”.

According to Statistics Canada, since 1993, child poverty has remained a problem. It has somewhat diminished in some families. But about two weeks ago, Statistics Canada told us that 983,000 children were still living below the poverty line in Canada and in Quebec. In every throne speech, we hear that the government will be fighting child poverty. Child poverty exists not only in urban areas, in large cities, but also in rural communities like mine. This is especially true since cuts were made to employment insurance.

I wish to remind the House, and this is my second point, that less than 40% of all contributors are currently eligible for EI benefits. This is a very serious issue in an area like mine or in Newfoundland or throughout the maritimes. It is a serious issue because most of the work there is seasonal. For part of the year, workers need some kind of income support, which they are not getting right now. They do not have a decent living, because the government has kept on slashing EI benefits.

If the government were serious about fighting poverty and providing a decent living for families, it would have to change the EI system to ensure that people have a decent income. They could receive an income 52 weeks a year.

The other point I want to make is about protecting agriculture in the regions. We have heard about it, although the throne speech made no mention whatsoever of it. There are international negotiations under way. In the last few weeks. we have learned that the government has agreed to put supply management on the table. What would it mean for a region like mine and for all the regions in Quebec and in Canada if the government were to put this on the table and negotiate it away?

Right now, even though the situation has changed over the past 25 or 30 years, or more, farming in our regions is still a predominantly family business.

What would happen if supply management was revisited? It would mean, once again, that the regions would be more affected than large centres. It would also mean that large companies would buy agricultural productions and could concentrate them around large centres, thus deserting the regions.

It would have been a good idea in the throne speech for the government to have reaffirmed its intention to protect supply management and to protect agriculture.

There is another issue on which the throne speech is totally silent and about which the regions are very concerned. I am referring to fishing, which is a very important industry in regions such as mine, in the Maritimes and in regions such as the riding of the hon. member for Skeena, who sits on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

The federal government has really mishandled this issue since assuming responsibility for it. Once again, we are told about the possibility of a moratorium on groundfish in our regions. This means that current fishers, whose income is already insufficient, would have more problems.

This government should at least have mentioned the issue of fishing in the throne speech, because of the concerns of fishers, people in our region, and the general public. It should at least have stated its intentions regarding the future of the fishing industry, and its desire to protect our resource and support fishers in our regions.

I want to talk about the development of exporting businesses in our regions. It seems that, in all likelihood, the federal government would rather see exporting businesses develop in and around major centres.

Some businesses tried to settle in my region, including in the Gaspé, but there were so many hurdles and problems, including in the negotiations with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, that they gave up and decided to settle in large centres, because this is what they were advised to do. This is what they were told by public officials.

Before closing, I would like to touch on the issue of softwood lumber. We learned today that there will be a program of assistance for the softwood lumber industry. However, again, this program is only half of a program, because it does not help companies. It only helps, it would appear according to the information available, workers and obviously the communities involved.

I fully agree with helping workers and the communities that have been affected. I think that is right, and admirable. However, we must also support the businesses, because if they close their doors, other workers and other communities will be affected. I would have liked the Speech from the Throne to express a real desire to support businesses in our regions.

In closing, I would like to add one last comment regarding air transportation in the regions and the federal government's complete abdication when it comes to both air and rail transportation, which, as we know, is only available three days per week for passengers in my region.

To close, the Speech from the Throne really does not contain anything for regions such as mine, and we were very disappointed with it, as we were with the previous Speech from the Throne.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, why does the federal Minister of Agriculture not ask his government to give the money directly to the Financière agricole du Québec, as the Union des producteurs agricoles has asked, so that the money is better used, and by farmers who really need it.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's assistance plan for farmers compensates them based on their particular sector. The federal plan provides for blanket compensation for all farmers, which has the undesirable effect of providing assistance to farmers who do not need it at all.

Could the government not instead adopt the approach taken by Quebec's minister of agriculture, an approach that has the benefit of corresponding with reality and of assisting the farmers who really need it.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened to what my colleague had to say about the Speech from the Throne. He talked, among other things, about the national child benefit. He also mentioned employment insurance and fishing, since he comes from an area where fishing is important.

I have not seen anything about fishing in the throne speech. With regard to the national child benefit, I agree that it must be increased. This is something that should be done.

However, why have these people become poor? That is the question that we must ask ourselves. Since 1993, people from so-called remote areas, like the one represented by the member, have become considerably poorer, and there is a reason for that. It is, among other things, because of cuts made to the employment insurance plan. Does my colleague think that rural areas have been fairly dealt with in the throne speech that was presented to us?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and I heard her talk a lot about the regions, but she was talking almost exclusively about urban areas. If she read the throne speech carefully and if she listened to it attentively, she knows that it is quite obvious that the government intends to invest in urban areas only.

Rural areas are being totally abandoned. I will give an example. In my region, Air Canada is getting ready to drop air service. We will virtually have no services left in my region. The same goes for the Gaspé, for the Magdalen Islands, for all rural areas.

I simply want to remind my colleague that nearly 80% of public service cuts made by the Liberal government have been in areas such as mine, that is in so-called rural areas.

I understand that the member represents an urban riding, but I would like to ask her if the government has thought about rural areas in the throne speech.

My answer is no, but I would like to have her answer.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I may not be a good example because I had a very good idea of what was going on over there. My region was experiencing the same problem, and I knew that Newfoundland was affected in the same way. As I said, I am not a good example because I was very well informed. I was familiar with the issue and I followed the situation closely.

However, I would like to go back to the fact that the magnitude of the problem is clear from a statistical point of view. We know that communities are affected. I could see that happening in the Gaspé, where I lived. But as long as one does not meet those affected, as long as one does not see what human tragedy really is, as long as one is satisfied with looking at statistics, one can say “Yes, Newfoundland's population is on the decline. Yes, villages have disappeared. Yes, the economy has been totally destroyed”.

However, we have met people who have lived through the tragedy, people whose village has closed down, people who had been honourably earning a living in a given area for generations, people who had been earning a living in an industry and, suddenly, found they had no future. They were forced to move away and, today, their 18 to 20 year old children must also move away, because there is no work. Basically, these people have been left alone to cope in a more or less active environment, the social fabric of which is gradually deteriorating. At that point, things are quite different, because you are really living with them—temporarily, for the time that you are there—going through what they go through daily and what they have been going through for years.

The government has said “We will create assistance programs to support you”, but these are essentially useless programs. All it is doing is keeping these people in poverty, when it should have been exercised caution and protected the resource, which we did not do.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is asking today that we protect the resource. This is what we are asking. It is quite simple: let us protect the resource, at least what is left of it, to ensure that it can renew and rebuild itself and that, one day, we can rebuild the economies of these regions.

Of course, they will no longer be based only on fishing, because this will not be possible. However, let us at least give the resource a chance, to ensure that we can rebuild the economies of these regions and that some of these people can go back to earning a decent living.

This is simple. This is what we are asking this parliament to do.