Jean-Yves Roy

[Anti-Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since September 11, all governments on this planet have been faced with a problem that is, if not entirely new, of a scope never before known.

All countries are today faced with new terrorist threats, which are creating something akin to panic in the population at large. Anthrax and other types of alerts are keeping emergency services constantly in response mode. Without wishing to be a prophet of doom, I feel we are far from seeing the end of this.

The danger we face--over and above the attacks or, in certain cases, the supposed attacks--is the gradual paralysis of the economy, of democratic institutions, and of the way we live within society.

All heads of state without exception--at least all those we have heard from--are calling upon us daily to continue to live our lives as normally as possible, as otherwise the terrorists will have accomplished their objective.

Our governments have, as far as they are able, tried to react so as to reassure their population. We are told this over and over. We are told that all steps have been taken to ensure public safety. Nevertheless, people everywhere are showing how insecure they are feeling. They are still extremely fearful.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has just introduced Bill C-36, which would, as its title indicates, amend the criminal code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts. This is known by the short title of the anti-terrorism act.

We agree with this bill in principle. We agree that terrorism must be fought against and also that we have to equip ourselves with the means to do so, and consequently must amend legislation so that we can do a better job of it.

We humbly submit, however, that we need to avoid falling into the trap that lies before us, that is to act too hastily, to pass new legislation which would far exceed its objective and would open the door to all manner of abuses.

Periods such as the current one can easily lead to excesses. Canada's recent history is not exempt from such abuse. Remember what happened during the second world war. Some serious abuse took place in the past in spite of the fact that we lived in a democracy. Citizens were stripped of their rights, even though they had not committed any crime.

Notwithstanding the current situation, we want to maintain our fundamental rights. We want to remain free. We do not want our democracy to be tarnished again by abuse. We must be cautious and take the time necessary to examine all the repercussions that could result from the passage of Bill C-36.

The September 11 terrorist attacks and the continuing threats at present have reached an extraordinary level and created an extraordinary context. Bill C-36 must therefore be an extraordinary piece of legislation to deal with an extraordinary situation.

Should the terrorist threat diminish, several of the measures being considered through Bill C-36 would become unacceptable and the balance between security and freedom would have to be readjusted.

In a democracy, this is always a fragile balance. We must not forget that. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to include a sunset clause whereby certain provisions of the bill would no longer be in effect after three years, unless of course the House decided otherwise at that time and the need to extend such provisions was demonstrated. We are also asking that this act be reviewed on a yearly basis.

There are other aspects of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, that raise concerns. It seems to us that the definition of a terrorist act goes too far. It is much too broad and could lead to abuse against groups or individuals who have no connection with terrorism.

We had a very good example of this in the House today when it was suggested that certain groups of protesters at the Quebec summit be deemed to have committed terrorist acts.

The bill would enable the attorney general to withhold information by not applying the Access to Information Act, this without an evaluation by the privacy commissioner and without a judicial review.

This means that the attorney general, or Minister of Justice, is giving herself the authority to withhold information from the public, to remove elements of information, this without any consultation with the information commissioner.

Another element which appears to carry some risk and which deserves to be studied further is that the Minister of National Defence could intercept international communications simply by making a written request to the Communications Security Establishment.

This means that the Minister of National Defence could claim the power to intercept international communications between two groups, individuals or businesses simply by asking the Communications Security Establishment in writing.

A number of other questions could be raised and some of them already have been raised by the media. Doubts have arisen.

Hopefully the bill will be carefully examined before being passed. As elected representatives, it is our duty to ensure that the bill attains the objective for which it was created. As elected representatives, it is our duty to ensure that the bill does not go too far and violate the freedoms of the citizens who elected us.

In my remarks, I also wanted to remind members that the best way to fight terrorism is by preventing it at the source. As a democracy and as a society, we must ask ourselves what the real issues are and try to come up with satisfactory solutions to them.

It is by fighting poverty and misery, as we have repeatedly said, that we will best succeed in changing things. It is by educating and teaching that we will best be able to fight blindness and loosen the grip that dictators have on poorly educated populations. It is by sharing knowledge and resources that we will best succeed in creating conditions that will prevent terrorist groups from springing up. It is also, and most importantly, by restoring assistance to developing countries that we can best intervene. It is a long term process that we must undertake immediately.

Military strikes are not enough to eradicate terrorism. Nor is tough legislation. These are short term measures. What is needed is a new world order where human beings are held in greater value.

[The Acadians, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride that I rise today in this House to speak to Motion No. 241 brought forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes, which reads as follows:

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British Crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.

A lot has happened since we first started the debate on this issue, on March 27, 2001. After dispelling doubts about his Acadian origins, the hon. member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes travelled to Acadia on three occasions to submit his proposal to the Acadian people.

His first visit, in May, took him to New Brunswick. His second, in June, took him to Prince Edward Island for the annual general meeting of the Société nationale des Acadiens. His latest one, in August, coincided with the celebration of national Acadian day.

During these visits, my colleague made some important contacts and broadened the support for his proposal within the Acadian community.

One of the first to support Motion No. 241 brought forward by my hon. colleague was a lawyer from Louisiana, Warren Perrin, who has been fighting for more than 10 years to have the wrongs done to the Acadian people during the deportation between 1755 and 1763 recognized.

A descendant of exiled Acadians, Warren Perrin has become an unswerving defender of the rights of the francophones known today as the Cajun and of the Acadian culture in Louisiana. Since 1990, Mr. Perrin has tirelessly organized a petition to cause the British crown to apologize for the deportation of the Acadians.

Besides the support of hundreds of individuals and associations as well as history and international law experts, he has received the support of the legislatures of Maine and Louisiana. Democrat Senator John Breaux even intends to raise the issue before the American congress.

I find it bizarre that the Parliament of Canada, to which our Acadian fellow countrymen elect representatives, is choosing to sit on the sidelines, legislatively speaking, on this issue.

On June 2, 2001, the Société nationale des Acadiens held a general assembly where it reconsidered its initial position and unanimously supported Motion No. 241. The Société nationale des Acadiens has great influence, credibility and a whole network of contacts in the maritimes and throughout the world and it represents the Acadian community of Atlantic Canada and elsewhere.

In the opinion of the members of the Société nationale des Acadiens, this motion gives the Acadian people the opportunity to have the wrongs done to their ancestors, as well as the concrete impacts that are still felt today, officially recognized.

To its credit, the Société nationale des Acadiens wanted to take this issue outside of the parliamentary framework. To legitimize its position, on August 16, 2001, it set up an advisory committee led by Maurice Basque, an historian and the director of the Centre d'études acadiennes of the Université de Moncton. The main purpose of the committee was to consider the historical, legislative and social issues surrounding Motion No. 241.

As indicated in its report, the committee heard from about 140 individuals, associations, municipalities and Acadian organizations from Canada, the United States and France. After analyzing all the proposals, the advisory committee came out with a number of recommendations, including the two following:

That the Société nationale des Acadiens pursue its representations to cause the British crown to officially recognize the historical wrongs done during the deportation of the Acadians.

That the motion be sponsored by all Acadian members of the House of Commons, regardless of political stripe.

The third recommendation concerns the mustering of Acadian forces to consolidate their promotional and developmental efforts in order to catch up economically, socially and culturally. The final opinion is that the Société nationale des Acadiens should continue to support the Government of Canada in its efforts to promote cultural diversity and the struggle against intolerance and in discrimination.

In an article in the September 26, 2001 issue of La Voix Acadienne , journalist Annie Racine lists some of the organizations supporting the action by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes:

--Motion M-241 has the support of the Société des Acadiennes et des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick, of the Société nationale des Acadiens, of the Association des juristes francophones and of the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick.

I should mention that this last association represents 40 municipalities in the province of New Brunswick and nearly 100,000 Acadians.

There seems to be a growing consensus around the motion in the Acadian population, as Hector J. Cormier, an editorial writer, indicated in Le Moniteur Acadien on September 27, 2001, and I quote:

--Acadians are justified in demanding apologies for the wrongs done to their people in the deportation. It would put an end to unconscionable treatment, to centuries-long suffering and to a collective fear it will take long to dispel.

Wrongs done by a group of individuals can have repercussions over a lifetime, lasting decades. At some point someone has to recognize the errors made and wounds must be healed to enable people to live in the present, work for the future and stop feeling obliged to look back to the pain of the past.

According to Philippe Ricard's article in L'Acadie Nouvelle on September 20, 2001, “--Liberal members have to stop being afraid of the “machinations” of the Bloc members. Because, if the motion were defeated, Acadia and Acadians would slip further behind”. The wound would remain unhealed.

The former member for West Nova, Conservative Mark Muise, said in a speech in the House on November 30, 1999:

It took several centuries for Acadians to recover from this tragedy. Some would argue that we are still suffering. Historians do not all agree about this deportation. Was it a war against the Acadians or an ethnic cleansing operation? This, I guess, depends on the viewpoint of the historian. Nevertheless, no one can deny that this tragedy happened and that the measures taken by Great Britain had serious consequences.

The motion itself does not call for compensation and does not invite descendants of those who were deported to return to occupy their land. It is simply aimed at obtaining an apology for the pain and suffering inflicted upon the Acadian people.

The member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes is saying to anyone who is willing to listen that if necessary he will have his motion sponsored by a member of another political party in the House and he is even willing to accept amendments to his motion, in keeping with the proposals contained in the report from the Societé nationale des Acadiens.

Above all, this is not the motion of one member or one political party but of the Acadian people. This initiative by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes goes beyond the partisan considerations that usually prevail in this House. It is part of the preparation for the 3rd Congrès mondial acadien and the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of Acadia, which will take place in 2004.

Above all, however, we think that the 250th anniversary of the deportation of Acadians, which will be commemorated all over the world in 2005 by the Acadian diaspora, among others, would be a most appropriate time for such an apology.

The parliamentary process is such that it will be a long time before the House can vote on this motion. Let us use this time to ensure that this issue is not affected by partisan considerations. Nobody would gain anything should this motion be defeated. However, many people would lose a lot, and they are not necessarily the ones that the opponents of this motion want to punish by voting against it.

What message would we be sending to the world should that happen? That the Canadian parliamentary system is unable to disregard the origin of an initiative when making a decision.

Most importantly, what message would we be sending to the Acadian people? That the deportation is an event that is not worth recognizing here in parliament? That this issue is not important enough for the elected representatives of the people to show some openness and maturity in dealing with it? That parliamentarians could not reach the type of consensus that we witnessed with regard to many other often less significant issues? In any case, everybody comes out a loser.

[Canadian Airline Industry, October 1st, 2001]

Madam Chairman, all the impacts the events of September 11 will have on our lives and particularly on our economy are not known yet.

The very first impact, besides the horror and the bitter taste we were left with, is certainly that we have come to realize that things will never be the same on our planet.

Every serious political and financial pundit in this world agrees that things will never be the same as before this awful day. Democracies and their economies have all been tremendously affected.

These events have led countries to collectively reflect on the situation, like they never had before. Every state had to stop and rethink, if not reconsider, their relations with other countries.

It would be great if all this rethinking would lead us to sustainable peace, the redistribution of wealth, shared values, mutual respect and especially respect for life and freedom.

These last few days, a great many people made almost the same statement. The world is going through a crisis. The economies are in crisis, and the various countries have to do something about it.

Some observers even go as far as to question the way globalization has taken place or is taking place. The great states of the north, of which we are part, have not really listened to the wishes expressed by poorer countries that wanted free trade to be more respectful of people and of local and regional economies.

One of the lessons we must learn from the events of September 11 is that the concentration of decision-making centres in one place make us most vulnerable to this new form of war, terrorism.

Many large corporations operating at the international level lost their senior executives on September 11. It will take years before they can rebound from that.

Closer to us, thousands of people find themselves unemployed. Thousands of families will see their income reduced by nearly 50%. Thousands of families will suffer from this new kind of insecurity, which inevitably brings with it a host of social problems.

I think that what we see in the media reflects a form of insensitivity that we have felt in the words of our political leaders. The first page of major newspapers and the news on major television networks all say the same thing “Air Canada cuts 9,000 jobs; another carrier, 1,200; another business, 200; another one, 600”. It looks a lot like a list of statistics which, like any other statistics, will soon be forgotten.

We are not only talking about lost jobs here. We are talking about human beings who find themselves unemployed. We should not be reading that 9,000 jobs were cut, but rather that 9,000 people are now unemployed.

Moreover, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. As I was saying earlier, we have not yet felt the full impact of the events of September 11.

There will likely be more layoffs announced over the course of the next days, weeks, and months. Of course, these people will be eligible for employment insurance, as a government member mentioned, as though employment insurance were some sort of magic solution to all of the pain caused by the events of September 11, as though employment insurance could solve the problem of all of the Air Canada employees and allow them to continue living.

What kind of employment insurance are we offering them? An employment insurance that has been slashed, virtually destroyed by a government whose sole objective was to pay off a deficit and debt caused by years of waste, of shameless spending, which continues in some sectors, particularly by overlap that could easily be fixed if the political will existed.

To deal with the situation in which we currently find ourselves, we need more than today's employment insurance, that is to say, in its current form. For years, we in the Bloc Quebecois have been asking for a return to a real employment insurance program, which would protect workers adequately in difficult times such as those we are currently experiencing.

Our message then and now is glaringly relevant, especially today, unfortunately. The events of September 11 have led us to reflect, collectively, on the role of the state. This is the specific issue that tonight's motion deals with.

Why do we elect governments in so-called democratic societies? What good does a government do if, in hard times, it answers stupidly that we have to wait and see? Do we really need to wait until the ship has sunk before launching the life rafts? Does the economy need to be rock bottom before we take action?

I personally believe that the government has a role to play as regulator, particularly with respect to Air Canada and the airline industry. To support the economy and employment during hard times, a government must shed its conservative ways and wait and see attitude and show some creativity.

For years, the government's attitude has led to abandonment of the regions. This is particularly the case for air transportation. This government has done everything possible to unload the few infrastructures it did have in the regions. From the state as provider, we have moved to the state as non-presence. One might even think that there was an avowed wish to close down the regions, to leave them so little leeway that they would disappear through attrition.

As I said earlier, air transportation is a good example. It had virtually ceased to exist in the regions, and I trust that, despite the cuts announced at Air Canada, the regions will not again have to pay for what has occurred. In our regions, we are already in an extremely difficult situation. Services have been cut back. We are poorly serviced, if at all, and at ridiculous cost.

Great care must therefore be taken when addressing the difficulties being faced by the Canadian airline industry. Vigilance and prudence are necessary to avoid having this difficult and serious situation not simply put an end to a fundamental service, our air service, which is already in a precarious position.

This leads me to make the point that the cuts announced by Air Canada involved 9,000 job cuts, and apparently 1,000 of those are in regional airports.

For all these reasons and given the current situation, it is imperative that services be maintained. I say maintained, but I should really be talking about development and improvement in the regions.

I hope that the regions will not have to pay a high price. Considering what limited services we were getting, the state has a responsibility to take action so as to ensure that we will at least keep what little we had.

The government must be proactive and it must speed up the review of all the investment projects submitted by regional companies. It must adopt more flexible criteria, because its criteria often do not reflect the realities and needs of the regions. It must also co-operate with the Quebec government and with the other provincial governments. This is no time for pointless squabbles. Democracy must be respected.

The Quebec government has already begun a process that is giving excellent results in so-called remote areas. Whether in the Gaspé Peninsula or in the Matapédia Valley, people are beginning to hold their heads high, and it would be tragic if the events of September 11 were to stop this new momentum. It would also be tragic if these events were to prevent us from developing and expanding because, among other things, of a lack of transportation services.

I am asking this government to work with the Quebec government and with the other provincial governments to help our regions make it once and for all. This is a necessary and urgent change of attitude.

I remain convinced that we will be less vulnerable when our regions are stronger and when our decision making centres are not all concentrated in the same location.

As a Bloc Quebecois member, I am asking the government to take action and to do so to help the regions.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Châteauguay, who just spoke, even though he took some time away from me. I think he spoke with so much energy and passion that it was worth it.

He conveyed very well the idea I wanted to start my speech with, which is that the Bloc motion is a simple matter of respect for democracy. I believe that parliament ought to be consulted and that each member be allowed to express in a vote the opinions and wishes of the people they represent.

As the hon. member for Châteauguay aptly pointed out that we represent the people. We must therefore make decisions on behalf of the people, and thus we must be consulted and have the right to vote.

In this debate, I also heard members say that our democracy ought to preach by example. I have heard this time and time again. If we really wish to preach by example, as others mentioned, it has to start here, in this parliament. It is here that we must show how democracy works and the government must allow the elected representatives to vote on the issue.

When I became aware with people all over the world of the events in New York on September 11, I was struck by the sheer magnitude of this tragedy. Thousands of men and women had their physical integrity denied or lost their lives.

It is easy to imagine the horror that filled their soul. Like many of us, I thought about those who watched on TV the death of their husband or wife, or friends.

I thought about fathers and mothers who lost a daughter or a son. I thought about children who watched on TV the death of their mother or father.

While we watched this immense tragedy unfolding before our eyes, our first reactions were stupefaction, the disbelief that other human beings can do such a thing and destroy so many lives for a cause. I do not think any cause can justify such acts and the sacrifice of so many lives.

After these first two reactions, stupefaction and disbelief, the third one is probably anger, and that is what we witnessed. However anger is blind and it often makes us do things we cannot justify afterwards.

When anger subsides, we should look for causes. Why is mankind capable of such acts? How can people commit such crimes? I am not in any way tempted to justify these actions. They have never been acceptable and they never will be.

We should face the fact that this kind of action is not new. The attacks on September 11 have been more spectacular and dramatic than previous incidents throughout the world, but for decades our democratic societies have been the target of repeated terrorist attacks.

For decades, not one year has gone by without us seeing a new war being fought in some part of the world. With the new millennium, with the fall of the Berlin wall, the men and women who live on this planet had a new hope, the hope that mankind was heading toward a new era, an era of possible peace and prosperity for all.

If the 20th century gave us two world wars, my children, our children had the right to expect that mankind would have finally understood that war and violence lead nowhere.

Of course, we have the right to self-defence. The attacks of September 11 call for a response, not vengeance but a response.

Those responsible must pay the consequences. Democracies must take measures but they must not act blindly. As democrats, we must use all the means at our disposal to ensure that these kinds of actions do not happen again or at least to try to prevent them as much as possible.

Over the last few days, we heard many speeches in the House. However few members addressed the real causes of the tragedy of September 11.

The greatest tragedies are born of poverty and misery. Throughout the world, millions of human beings live in poverty, which creates the conditions that lead to dictatorships and terrorism.

Poverty exists even in our country. It may not be as apparent as in certain third world countries or fourth world countries, as some would say today, but it does exist.

There is a huge disparity between so-called industrialized countries and poor countries. There is a huge disparity between rich countries and poor countries, as well as between various regions of our country.

The Bloc Quebecois wants democracy to be respected. This is the sole objective of the motion introduced in the House today, that is the respect of democracy.

The people from Quebec have elected members to represent them in the House. These members represent the people of their ridings. It is this right to representation that we are requesting today through the motion that has been put before the House.

It is nothing but the right to represent our people and to present their views that we are asking the House today.

We do not accept the fact that Canada, as a democracy, can commit to an action without first having given parliament the chance to vote, without having consulted with its representatives.

We are only asking for the respect of our values, of the values of all Quebecers and all Canadians.

I want to reiterate that the democracies and the rich countries will have to share their wealth, to spend more in assistance to developing countries and to support the democratic nations around the world.

[Supply, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, our honourable colleague from Calgary East raised something I consider very important in the light of the events of September 11.

Among other things, he mentioned international development and poverty. He also spoke of help to developing countries which are also trying to build democracies and to fight violence where possible.

As the events of September 11 were unfolding, I was attending a meeting of parliamentarians from around the world. There were 1,000 of us gathered in one of the world's poorest countries, in central Africa.

I noted that cuts in assistance to developing countries have resulted in major tragedies in certain areas of Africa and elsewhere in the world.

I would like to know the position of the member for Calgary East on international development and the aid we provide to developing countries. We know that Canada has cut its aid to developing countries. If memory serves, we spend less than 0.4% of our GDP on international assistance.

Could the member for Calgary East tell me his opinion on this?

[Port Infrastructures, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recently appeared before the parliamentary committee. All committee members agree that the funds allocated to the repair and maintenance of small craft harbours are far from sufficient. In addition, the minister has promised to look into providing financial support for the authorities of ports that have been reassigned.

Does the minister intend to respond positively to the request by the members of the committee to increase the maintenance and repair budgets of small craft ports and does he intend to act quickly on the possibility of providing financial support for port authorities?

[Fisheries, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, the Fédération des pêcheurs semi-hauturiers du Québec, and the Association québécoise de l'industrie de la pêche are unanimous in their request.

Will the minister once again, as is his government's habit, reject out of hand another consensus in Quebec?

[Fisheries, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, stakeholders in Quebec's fishing industry unanimously recommend an additional quota of 6,000 tonnes of shrimp for Quebec.

The request is based on principles of fairness and on the respect of historical quotas granted to Quebec fishers.

Does the minister of fisheries intend to reply favourably to Quebec's repeated request and give it the additional 6,000 tonnes for which it is rightfully asking?

[Port Infrastructures, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is allocating a meagre $50 million for the maintenance and repair of small craft harbours, when we all know that the infrastructure network and these harbours are in very bad shape, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

How does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reconcile so few resources and so many needs? Is he prepared to invest more and quickly?

[Lumber, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the termination of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement is likely to result in considerable job losses, particularly if the Americans follow through with their threats to, among other things, slap a countervailing duty on our exports ranging from 44% to 100%.

These measures could have a devastating effect on entire regions, such as the lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé, which account for 22% of Quebec workers in this sector: 3,000 in mills and 2,000 in the woods.

This threat over Quebec industry is both real and unjust. The federal government has a responsibility to put a set of measures in place to alleviate the effects of the present and potential crisis, starting specifically with more flexible employment insurance and the implementation of special tax measures for the resource regions.

This is not just a matter of defending our position in this matter against the Americans; thought must also be given to helping the industry and its workers, who are greatly in need of such help.