House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Film Industry February 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have another question. Should the merger be recommended, will the minister acknowledge that such a merger, which would result in the integration of the National Film Board
within Telefilm Canada, would erode and threaten any assistance being provided to the documentary and animated film industry?
Film Industry February 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I understand that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has ordered an assessment review on the possible merger of the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada. My question to the minister is: Can he confirm that the government intends to amalgamate the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada into one agency?
Quebec Marine Institute February 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, this year, the Quebec Marine Institute located in Rimouski is celebrating its 50th anniversary, and I want to take this opportunity today to underline this important moment in the history of seamanship training in Quebec and Canada. For 50 years, the Institute has earned an enviable reputation for itself both at the national and international levels in several fields related to maritime life. Young people and adults from everywhere come to the Institute to get quality training in these fields.
Deeply rooted in the region's maritime tradition, the Institute ensures Quebec's ongoing expertise in this area and enables the province to share its knowledge with the entire country. In addition to overseeing the maritime emergency measures training centre for the Canadian Coast Guard, the Institute has, since 1987, helped train Canadian Forces reserve personnel and is involved in many international co-operation projects.
We can only congratulate the Quebec Marine Institute for its initiative and its unwavering pursuit of excellence. May its dynamic spirit help it to weather all obstacles on the road to its continued development.
Criminal Code February 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for a very interesting speech, to which I listened very carefully. However, there was no mention of regulations. Could the parliamentary secretary tell us how we will deal with the regulations? Could he describe how we are going to proceed, just for my information? How does it work? The hon. member told us we would be able to table amendments, which would be considered in committee, but what about the regulations?
Criminal Code February 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment made by the hon. member who used to be in the Canadian navy and had the responsibility of protecting Canadian territorial waters. It is imperative that the government protect its territorial waters. There is no doubt in my mind; however, we must not think that if we give the right to cripple a vessel, this responsibility will exclusively be assumed by the captain.
Competition is very stiff; fishermen must earn a living; they must catch as many fish as possible in the shortest possible time, and then they must move on. But these people have permits after all. In my opinion-correct me if I am wrong-illegal fishing in itself is not an act of piracy. However, I think it is important that these measures be taken with a maximum of guarantee as regards the protection of human lives. In my opinion, it will never be worth risking a person's life to arrest someone who is fishing illegally.
Criminal Code February 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing does indeed have two parts but I will comment only on the second part, that is the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
The bill seeks to give fisheries protection officers the right to disable a foreign fishing vessel or to attempt to do so, within the limits of the regulations. As my colleague said before, the expression "to disable" a vessel is what is creating a problem here because definitions vary from one dictionary to another.
I checked the Robert dictionary and it says that to disable is to make unable, unfit, ineffective''; hence, to disable a ship means to cause damage that will prevent it from manoeuvering, for example cause damage to the helm, the motor or other essential instruments. The purpose therefore is not to sink the ship but to keep it from causing harm or sailing away. So that we may be sure of the meaning of the term, the bill should include a definition of the worddisable''; that way, there could be no confusion in the interpretation of the act.
A foreign vessel under arrest could then be disabled if it were in flight. If, while inspecting the vessel or interrogating its crew, the protection officer discovered illegal actions, the owners and the captain of the ship could then be forced to face Canadian justice.
We must admit straight off that foreign fishing vessels have been sailing for a long time in what are recognized today as Canadian territorial waters; they did so even before the discovery of Canada.
Therefore, they acquired historic rights which enabled them to obtain a permit to fish within Canada's 200-mile zone, provided they complied with the attendant regulations. Among other things, the regulations spell out the species that can be caught, the allowable size of the catch, where parties can fish, the need to keep a log, and so forth.
Some foreign vessels are occasionally suspected of fishing illegally. The Concordia affair which occurred on December 11, 1989, comes to mind. A US vessel, the Concordia , was fishing illegally in Canada's exclusive economic zone, on George Bank off the shores of Nova Scotia. Detected and photographed by a Canadian Forces Tracker aircraft, the Concordia did not respond to the Tracker's radio transmissions. It also ignored the Canadian Forces destroyer Saguenay , which it even rammed before retreating toward US waters.
Back in Ottawa, as my colleague mentioned, External Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans, DND and the Privy Council needed seven and one half hours to consult with one another before giving the Saguenay permission to use force to stop the Concordia . In the meantime, the Concordia had plenty of time to take refuge outside Canadian waters. The owner and captain of the vessel were fined $9,000, considerably less than what they took in as a result of the illegal fishing activities.
It is important for a country to protect its territorial waters. The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act now before Parliament gives fisheries protection officers the right to disable a foreign fishing vessel suspected of carrying out illegal fishing activities.
In speaking to this debate, I want to draw the government's attention to the importance of having regulations that spell out clearly when and how force is to be used to disable a vessel. I realize that regulations to this effect are being drafted, but regulations are not voted on. In my view, it is important that these regulations be tabled in the House prior to the adoption of
this bill on third reading. If this is not possible, then the restrictions that go along with this power should be spelled out clearly in the act.
Fisheries protection officers are being given this new power in an effort to halt illegal fishing by foreign vessels in Canadian waters. In the absence of any extradition provision with regard to fisheries, it is all too easy for a foreign vessel that has committed an offence in Canadian waters to escape scot-free by sailing out of the economic zone, keep its cargo and cash in the profits.
As we have just seen, it is difficult to disable a vessel. So, notwithstanding the necessity to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the government must continue to explore new ways of resolving the problem.
For instance, it could negotiate bilateral arrangements with other countries to arrest on arrival at their home port the captains of vessels suspected of illicit fishing in Canadian waters. It could insist that deterrent penalties be imposed on the owners and captains of vessels contravening the regulations governing their fishing licences. In that regard, it should be pointed out that since 1991, the fine imposed on nationals guilty of illicit fishing is $100,000 in the United States, while in Canada it can be as high as $750,000.
Finally, illegal fishing is not the prerogative of foreign fishing vessels. While pursuing ongoing efforts in the UN to ensure better protection for our resources through arrangements, it would be important that the Canadian government initiate a project to develop a national, if not international, code of ethics, the primary purpose of which would be to make everyone accountable and responsible for the conservation of our fishery resource.
Fisheries management must be decentralized. The industry must assume responsibility for itself and regulate itself in terms of the enforcement measures or penalties to be applied to those who contravene the code of ethics. For example, the fisherman who exceeds his fishing quota one year could see his quota reduced the next year. For illegal fishing, his fishing licence could be withdrawn or suspended for some time.
The Bloc Quebecois supports this bill from the Minister of Justice. Nevertheless, this bill should include an amendment forbidding the use of force if the lives of the crew of the fleeing vessel are in danger. The door to the use of force which we are opening today must in no case be used to excuse blunders which could be committed by protection officers using the right given to them today.
Canada must show its political will to enforce its 200-mile jurisdiction over its territorial waters. This alone justifies the bill today, although it is regrettable in some respects for moral and social reasons. Unfortunately, it seems that force is still the only language which some people understand, although it is not the most effective way to end illegal fishing practices. The aim of showing the international community that our country is determined to end these practices is quite laudable. However, the use of force is always risky. That is why the Bloc Quebecois's amendment is meant to limit the use of force so as to avoid unfortunate incidents.
I hope that the government will consider this amendment, especially since there is no causal relationship between illegal fishing and the Atlantic fisheries crisis. The government must restructure the fishing industry and develop new commercial practices to promote underused species.
Finally, we cannot stop illegal fishing practices without the other countries' co-operation. Negotiations with the international community should continue because today's amendment to the Fisheries Protection Act in no way solves the real problems of fishermen in Eastern Canada.
Winter Olympic Games February 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, the 17th Winter Olympic Games will open in Lillehammer. For two weeks Canadians and Quebecers will be glued to their television set to watch our athletes perform.
Everybody will live on Olympic time and many of us will become night owls to see our athletes compete. Right now, we wish to tell them this: "Every one of you has already won". Your courage, your determination and your talent command our respect and our admiration.
I hope that each and every one of you will be lucky enough to step onto the podium. I say "lucky" because that is what it takes to win gold, silver or bronze given the high level reached by athletes in the world today.
To all Quebec athletes, I wish victory and a Lys d'or , which symbolizes a job well done and an objective met.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act February 9th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg for his speech on hockey-it is my favourite topic-but we will now move on to something more important. I found out that he worked for the CBC, which is my other topic. This honourable organization did such a good job that the two solitudes have grown further apart with each passing year.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister reminded us that somebody else had his head in the sand; the hon. member just told us that he does not have his head in the sand. I must conclude that this government is going from coast to coast in a submarine to hide from reality in this country. This country is two countries. That is what we have been trying to say since we came here, and we must stop suppressing this reality. There are two countries: Canada and Quebec. We came here to speak for Quebec and to defend its interests. In addition we were presented with Official Opposition status on a silver platter. We will also look after Canada because we want the country to be in good shape when we leave. We do not want a heavier debt burden and we want our share of a country that can stand up. We do not want to leave in a wheelchair.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act February 9th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his questions.
It is very interesting to see that, in spite of the official position of your party-it is true that the red book has become a thing of the past but still-you seem to be in favour of a referendum debate. Good, welcome to the club!
I do not want to spend too much time explaining the difference between sovereignty and separation, but the hon. member seems to have understood that sovereignty is a legal right. Sovereignty means that as a nation, we can negotiate our own treaties, make our own laws, levy our own taxes. Separation flows from sovereignty; once we have achieved sovereignty, we will be able to say, to put it simply, that we are separate. One is a legal reality, the other a consequence. Sovereignty is a legal status, and separation its consequence.
There is one important point I should make though. This House may not be aware of this, for we are continually portrayed as playing the poor, but the truth of the matter is that this has never been the attitude in Quebec. We Quebecers are proud people. We prefer to stand, even on a broken leg.
What I am getting at is that the federal government is taking nearly 23 per cent of its revenues from the pockets of Quebec taxpayers. On the other hand, between 1963 and 1993, federal departments have made less than 18 per cent-17.9 per cent to be exact-of their investments in Quebec. For 30 years-not one mind you-we never got more than 17.9 per cent of federal investments. This type of investment have a structuring effect. It
creates steady employment, steady jobs that make insecurity disappear.
Instead, what you are giving us is unemployment and welfare, and we have had enough. This House and Canadians from coast to coast must understand once and for all that we are sick and tired of being told that we are lying to the people. We will not stand for that any more.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act February 9th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I would like to associate myself with my colleagues to vigorously protest against the fact that the government does not limit itself to technicalities regarding equalization in Bill C-3.
What should have been done is a comprehensive review of federal transfer payments to the provinces, including established programs financing through which the federal government makes contributions to health and post-secondary education; the Canada Public Assistance Plan through which the federal government makes contributions to the provinces' social assistance programs and welfare services; and all the other programs governed by federal-provincial arrangements.
This piecemeal approach the government is taking will leave the door open to unpleasant surprises when the time comes to renegotiate the other bilateral arrangements. This approach does not give us a complete picture of all the cuts to come.
In fact, the trends are worrying. Federal contributions to transfer programs as a whole are in free fall. In Quebec alone, federal transfer payments have dropped from 28.9 per cent of the gross revenues of the province in 1983-84 to 20.1 per cent in 1993-94, and they should account for a as little as 15.8 per cent of Quebec's revenues by 1997-98.
Fiscal transfers no longer meet the objective they were intended to meet, although this objective was entrenched in the 1982 Constitution to promote equity among the regions. It is common knowledge now that attaching limits to equalization and established programs financing makes have-not provinces poorer and have provinces richer.
The federal government's withdrawal from various transfer programs is proving to be very expensive for Quebec. It is clear that the federal government wants to reduce its deficit at the expense of the provinces, and including Quebec.
Since the Bloc's position on equalization was already explained at some length by the two previous speakers for the Official Opposition, I would like to address two areas where Quebec did not receive its fair share: research and development and established programs financing.
Why is spending on research and development so important for the economy? Why talk about research and development in a debate on equalization? Simply because research and development constitutes a so-called structural investment, an investment that helps create a modern and competitive industry that generates high quality, well paying and permanent jobs. Through its productivity and growth, industry has a positive impact on the entire economy of a country.
The federal government is a very important player in research and development. In fact, it provides two types of funding for R and D activities: internal funding and external funding. Internal spending covers all R and D activities funded and conducted by the federal government. These expenditures are recurrent in nature. As for external spending, this covers all R and D activities which the government finances but does not conduct itself. This type of spending is random in nature since it can easily be shifted elsewhere in subsequent years.
In 1989, the federal government funded nearly 30 per cent of all R and D activities in Canada. Between 1979 and 1989, Quebec received only 18 per cent of federal spending in this area, while Ontario received 50.1 per cent, which works out to $4.6 billion for Quebec and $12.5 billion for Ontario.
In a study dealing with the equity of R and D financing, Pierre-Étienne Grégoire applied four criteria to determine under-funding or over-funding of R and D in the provinces.
These criteria are as follows: demographic weighting; economic weighting, which reflects support for regional economic activities; significance of regional R and D activities, which reflects support for new technology in the region; and significance of R and D involvement by provincial governments.
Accorded to these criteria, Quebec and Alberta are under-funded across the board. The study concludes that the provinces benefitting most in terms of regional development and economic growth are Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba; Saskatchewan and British Columbia benefit in terms of regional development;
and Quebec and Alberta do not benefit, either in terms of regional development or economic growth.
Finally, Quebec and Alberta are the only provinces with a negative balance for internal spending on research and development.
If we consider the amounts paid under established programs financing, Quebec and the poorer provinces are paying a very high price for the policy adopted by the federal government.
Established programs financing was introduced in 1977. Initially, the government indexed the per capita contribution and prorated this indexed contribution according to the population of each province. However, starting in 1982, the federal government gradually withdrew from financing this program by reducing the per capita increment.
We must realize that across-the-board cuts per capita are felt more severely by the poorer provinces, and this situation becomes even worse with the ceiling on equalization payments, since the provinces no longer receive additional equalization to make up for the lost revenue caused by federal cutbacks.
Since 1982, cuts in established programs financing have meant a loss of revenue for Quebec, which amounted to $1.8 billion in 1993-94.
Let us consider the impact of federal disinvestment on post-secondary education, especially at the university level. It is generally agreed that basic requirements in terms of training and skills will increase because of economic globalization and the ensuing need to specialise.
In its third report, the Conseil de la science et de la technologie predicts that by the year 2000, 64 per cent of all jobs will require post-secondary education. The government's withdrawal from funding our universities leads to under-funding of institutions that will be increasingly hard pressed to play the active role one expects them to play in this frenetic race to be competitive. Peter J. Nicholson, vice-president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, defines competitiveness as follows:
"The ability to produce goods and services that meet the test of international markets while citizens earn a standard of living that is both rising and sustainable over the long run".
An economic study conducted at the request of the Organisation nationale universitaire, which deals with the consequences of disinvestment in higher education and was published in 1993, provides some significant figures in this respect. For instance, a 40-year old worker who graduated from high school earns about $23,000 while a university graduate earns $43,000. If we extrapolate what these would earn in the course of their working lives, the university graduate receives additional income that mainly benefits governments, thanks to the current tax system. In Quebec, progressive tax rates allow the state to take an average of 53 per cent of the income of university graduates and 33 per cent in the case of high school graduates.
The study concludes that this sizable difference reflects a potential loss to the State of over half a million dollars every time a high school graduate decides to enter the labour market instead of going on to earn a bachelor's degree.
In the short term, the government saves money by disinvesting in higher education but, in the long term, these so-called savings result in a loss, and as the organization says, when the government wants to save money in the short term and decides to withhold one dollar from its funding of higher education, every dollar not invested will, in the long run, cause the government to lose $10 in tax revenue. The substantial reduction in tax revenue will, sooner or later, have to be compensated by a corresponding increase in the tax burden for all taxpayers. Unfortunately we will never be able to compensate for the net loss in human capital to our economic, social and cultural development. Basically disinvestment means that human potential and creativity remain untapped, and the loss to society is immense.
Of course disinvestment also has a negative impact through the resulting drain on unemployment insurance and welfare.
According to the Bureau de la statistique du Québec, in 1992, the unemployment rate was 14.3 per cent among high school graduates, while during the same period, university graduates experienced an unemployment rate of 5.8 per cent, despite the recession.
There is also a very significant cost in terms of social assistance, and the government's disinvestment in funding for university education will increase the number of people who will need social assistance later on.
According to Statistics Canada, in 1986-87, 52.2 per cent of welfare recipients were people who had only partially completed their high school studies, whereas 2.4 per cent were university graduates.
We could talk for a long time about the negative impact on the economy of the federal government withdrawal in the field of post-secondary education, but all these figures do not say anything about the loss of human potential resulting from this disengagement of the federal government.
After participating in this exercise, my party and myself come to the following conclusions. First, Quebec is far from getting its share in the research and development sector. This loss results in a very heavy price for our province, since R and D is an extremely dynamic sector of a country's economy. I want to point out that, overall, between 1979 and 1989, Quebec received $8 billion less than Ontario for that sector alone. In fact, Quebec's economy will feel the adverse effects of this loss for a long time to come.
Our second conclusion is that tax transfers are no longer a reliable source of financing for Quebec and for all the have-not provinces. Cuts imposed by Ottawa deprive Quebec of important revenues. If at least those cuts helped reduce the deficit, they would provide some benefit, but we are well aware that such is not the case. In fact, the federal government forces the poor provinces, including Quebec, to pay for its mismanagement.
The third conclusion which can be drawn is that all the cuts made to the tax transfer system have the effect of increasing the fiscal burden of the poor provinces, that select club to which Quebec belongs. In 1992-93 Quebec lost $2 billion under the established programs financing alone, yet the law forces the province to maintain national standards regarding the quality of services to which the federal government contributes less and less.
Sovereignty has become more necessary than ever for Quebec. All the measures taken by the federal government to cut these tax transfers to provinces destabilize Quebec's finances. To make things worse, the federal government is not even able to control its deficit.
I want to quote Mr. Jean Campeau who, when he came to my riding during the election campaign, said: "There was a time when Quebec wondered if it could afford to leave Canada. Now Quebec knows that it can no longer afford to remain part of Canada".