Jean-Yves Roy

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with continuing the divestiture program, but we have to support the corporations.

I would also like to remind the parliamentary secretary that the divestiture program provides for the paltry sum of $1.5 million for the entire country. What does the government hope to accomplish with that? We are talking about divestitures of ports that need repair. It costs as much to repair a port as to build it in the first place. I can give the example of Mont-Louis in my riding. It is costing $12 million or $13 million to repair the port before it can be transferred. So what does the government hope to do with $1.5 million a year?

There is a problem at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is completely underfunded, a tradition in the federal government. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is catastrophically underfunded. We do not get the impression that successive governments have considered fishing and the regions important.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what just happened proves that the current government is using the same tactics the former government did. They tried to gag the House on an extremely important issue, namely small craft harbours.

For years now, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the entire industry and all the communities in our regions have been asking for significant investment in small craft harbours. The reason is simple: according to every study we have read, the infrastructure is currently in disrepair and in many cases is extremely dangerous. This is a matter of safety for all the fishers in the entire industry and of survival of some plants, as is the case in my riding. As far as the Mont-Louis West harbour is concerned, it is simply a question of a plant's survival. If ships can no longer dock in this harbour, if the 20 shrimpers or the other fishers can no longer dock in this harbour, the plant might have to close its doors because the fishers will have to go further west or further east.

In December 2001, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans adopted a comprehensive report and study on the small craft harbours situation. We learned then that a $400 million investment was absolutely needed just to repair and maintain the small craft harbours.

The previous government's response was to add $20 million a year to the budget for five years, which represents a $100 million investment in small craft harbours. We needed $400 million. Given the fact that the small craft harbours continue to deteriorate and given climate change and its impact on rundown harbours, the impact is even greater. Now we need roughly $500 million or $525 million just to repair the small craft harbours. I am not talking about the regular maintenance of small craft harbours. I am talking about 1,203 harbours, from coast to coast, whose entire infrastructure has to be repaired. This is a problem in the regions.

I would point out that I will share the time allotted me with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, whose riding is affected even more than that of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, which is affected even more than the riding of Manicouagan, which is affected even more than all of the other ridings in Quebec. It is true for the Magdalen Islands, it is true for the Gaspé, it is true for the North Shore and it is true for the lower North Shore. I personally saw it on the lower North Shore two years ago on a tour. People have to wait for high tide to dock.

Fishers find themselves in difficulty when they have to brave a storm, travel 30, 40 or 50 nautical miles before arriving at a port which is totally inaccessible because it has not been dredged or repaired. We are also aware how little has been invested in the Canadian Coast Guard for the protection of our ships. Over the years, we have come to realize that there was a big problem.

I have here a study done worldwide. It mentions many countries and what is done elsewhere. It mentions Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Philippines. It refers to all these countries. If we look at what is going on in Canada we realize it is practically the only developed country in the world that does not look after its infrastructure. Small craft harbours in Iceland and Norway are in respectable repair. When repairs are required, they are done. It is a matter of safety.

I will add that the government had undertaken to divest itself of a number of harbours that were not particularly useful. For a community, a harbour is useful for more than just fishing. In most communities, these harbours have many uses. But they are not being maintained.

Here is a specific example. Those tempted to fish for cod with a line—and a licence—from a dock in Mont-Louis should think again. They would be risking their lives.

It is as simple as that. The harbour is in very bad condition. So a fence is put up and people are prevented from using the harbours in question because the government did not maintain them. We are not asking for a fortune. We just want to keep the $20 million budget, plus an additional $15 million a year for five years, to be able at least to repair the harbours and then invest appropriately in maintaining them. We are talking about approximately $70 million for the entire infrastructure all across the country, simply to maintain it. So this is extremely important, a major concern for our communities.

I also recall that the committee report adopted in 2001, which the previous government half carried out, was passed unanimously. The current government of Conservatives voted as unanimously as the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to implement the recommendations of this report.

Today we see with this government a repeat of what happened under the Liberals. They tell us they are in favour of maintaining and repairing small craft harbours. However, they resort to various tactics to prevent us from speaking in the House, while saying they are in favour. There was absolutely nothing in this budget, nothing presented to us recently, to improve and maintain small craft harbours. Worse than less than nothing, they announced a cut of about $11 million a year in the budget, in addition to the elimination of the $20 million, which means that $31 million were cut. This means that the harbours will continue to deteriorate.

I would like to give you an example. When the roof of a house leaks, if it is left leaking for 10 years, maintaining the house or simply repairing it costs a fortune. It is the same with small craft harbours. The roof leaks now; worse, there are huge holes in it. They do not repair it. So in the end, it will cost a fortune. What will it be in 10 years? It will be a billion dollars. Then the government will tell us that it cannot repair or maintain all the harbours because it does not have sufficient funds, with the result that some more will be abandoned and the lives of the users of small craft harbours will be endangered.

That is the real issue, and here is this government trying to gag us and prevent us from speaking, we who are defending our regions and the citizens who use small craft harbours.

I mentioned that I was dividing my time with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, because this is extremely important in his region. The infrastructure in that region, which has already been badly hit by the ground fish crisis and deeply affected by economic hardship, is in pathetic shape, as can be observed by travelling around the region from harbour to harbour. We can see firsthand how little the federal government has been concerned about our regions and its own infrastructure over the years. It got involved in duplicating Quebec's programs, instead of taking care of its own infrastructure.

I talked about 1,203 harbours all across Canada, but of these, slightly more than 700 are managed by corporations. The other thing is that volunteer corporations were created to manage these harbours, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans cannot even support them. It simply cannot come up with a little funding to help them operate, so that they might really develop the harbours concerned.

At present, we realize that the corporations, which are, of course, volunteer organizations and are not being supported, are running out of steam. We realize that these people are wondering what the point is in the end, since the Department of Fisheries and Oceans cannot give them any support whatsoever to do their job. Worse, these people have to cope with the fishermen, the users, who are asking for repairs.

So these management corporations are used, one might say, as buffers between the federal government and the users. They have to manage the infrastructure in question, which is often in very poor condition, and receive all requests. They are the ones taking the criticism, when it should be the government being criticized.

Since I am being told I have one minute left, I would like to talk about another file, in closing, which is strangely similar to the one on small craft harbours. This is the at-sea observer program. I will speak about it later, because this is an extremely important file, on which the Conservative government, once again, has not really made up its mind. For some $2 million, the resource will be at risk across the country, from sea to sea, because the government does not want to invest this small amount of money in the autonomy and independence of the at-sea observers.

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I personally worked for many years in volunteer organizations and in the health care system, where I came in contact with young offenders. The residential facilities were in fact operated by health and social services. I was in a position to observe that when effort was invested in rehabilitating those young people, the success rate was nearly 88%, as the member for Richmond—Arthabaska was just saying.

I was in close contact with those young people. I went to visit the residential facilities and I saw how young people were treated. I imagined that if those young people had been 18 years old or more and had ended up in prison on their first offence, as the Conservative government is now proposing, they would have been completely traumatized. These were of course young people in difficulty who had committed significant acts, acts that could be characterized as criminal. Most of them, however, were on their first offence. Those young people would have been completely lost to society.

On an annual basis, it would have cost us over $50,000 to put those young people in prison, and for how many years? We have to count the number of years. If those young people are not rehabilitated, they may well, in fact, get out of prison and go back in, in other words, spend their lives going through that revolving door, and that amounts to much more than $50,000.

It is extremely important to invest in rehabilitating those young people. The member spoke about this, and I would like to direct my question for him to what he said. What kind of society do we want to live in? Do we not see a dichotomy here? Once again, visions of the justice system in Quebec and Canada are extremely different, so different that our society, our society as Quebeckers, is being placed at risk.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with investing $1.5 billion in agriculture. Where I draw a distinction is in the way in which this money will be distributed. If my colleague has read the budget, he will see that the government draws this distinction as well.

We are speaking about the strategic framework. There is a difference between agriculture in Quebec and in the west. Farmers in the west obviously cannot be supported in the same way as Quebec farmers. Agriculture based on dairy farms, on poultry, eggs and so forth, cannot be supported in the same way as agriculture based on wheat. It is very different. There is no comparison between the two.

The federal strategic framework that was imposed on Quebec does not suit us because it does not meet the needs of Quebec farmers. This happens to be true as well for certain other parts of the country. Different agricultural sectors have to be treated differently. For example, agriculture in Quebec is not built around large-scale wheat production but around much smaller-scale production of milk, eggs and grain.

That is why we say the strategic framework has to be changed.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think that in most sectors, there is already a strategy. In aeronautics, we already have a strategy.

I say yes to reducing the taxes on certain small and medium-sized businesses when they are making a profit. But if taxes are reduced and the business is not making a profit any more, the result is absolutely nothing. I think, therefore, that what is in the budget is a starting point, but we need to go a little further. We have to realize that, on the international level, we often face competition that is completely unfair, and that is unacceptable.

I could mention, for example, child labour or the wages paid in certain countries to people who have no social safety net. That is completely unfair competition. When people sleep in company dormitories, are under-paid, and work 12 to 16 hours a day for wages of 50¢ an hour, we obviously cannot compete with that. It is unfair competition.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

It is indeed misappropriation. We are talking about $48 billion over the past few years. I could carry on, but I will let my hon. colleague continue along this line following the five minutes of questions and comments.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I shall share my time with my hon. colleague from Chambly—Borduas, whom I thank.

I am pleased to rise in this debate on the budget brought down by the new government.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased with a number of measures it contains, but not entirely pleased with the budget speech on the whole.

We have to look back at the situation we were facing at the time of the last election. There had been a Liberal government in office for 13 years. In the area of agriculture, following the mad cow crisis and acts of unfair competition by the Americans, among other things, the Bloc Québécois had been calling for support for the farm industry in Canada and Quebec. The Liberals responded to some extent, at the eleventh hour, despite years of requests from farm producers. The Liberals finally agreed to invest a small amount to support agriculture across the country. However, they imposed a nation-wide policy framework with which producers in Quebec and Ontario were not pleased at all.

Agriculture in Quebec, as in Ontario, is extremely different from agriculture in the Western provinces. A one size fits all strategic framework therefore cannot be imposed on Canadian agriculture. This seems to us to be completely bizarre and foolish. There are not a lot of dairy producers in Western Canada; dairy farming is concentrated mainly in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick. Large amounts of money had to be invested; $1.5 million was invested. This is a large sum. The commitment made must now be honoured: the strategic framework must be revised and a new one proposed that will be appropriate to agriculture in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick.

Earlier, my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's spoke about fishing. Yes, the Bloc Québécois has for years been calling for the capital gains made by a fisher who wants to transfer his or her business to another family member—a son or daughter—to be exempted. Compared to what was done in farming, this was a great injustice.

For farming, there is a capital gains exemption when a family member wants to transfer the business. It must be understood that a fishing business is like a farming business. Often, it is the retirement plan for the person who is wanting to get out of the business. It is what allows that person to retire and not burden the son or daughter who takes over the fishing business with too much debt. While it provides some assistance, it is simply insufficient for fishing.

In recent years, management in the fishing industry has been an absolute disaster, and I am not talking about management of the resource by the federal government only in the last 13 years, but ever since the federal government has been responsible for managing the resource. This disastrous management has virtually wiped out the resource, particularly in the case of groundfish.

At present, the fishing industry is facing a tragic situation as a result of falling prices. The shrimp fishery is not necessarily very profitable. This year there was a large drop in crab prices. There is a problem with international negotiations and a problem with how our industry is promoted. Unlike what is done in the farming industry, there is virtually no promotion of our industry to get Canadians and Quebeckers to consume more local products. At the international level, there is unfair international competition—I am thinking, for example, of the imposition of quotas by the European Economic Community. Those quotas are causing a great deal of harm, particularly in the shrimp fishery. The federal government will have to make diplomatic efforts to solve this problem.

Knowing my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, I am sure he will speak about employment insurance. I want to address that subject as well.

In my region, as in a majority of rural regions in Quebec and a majority of the so-called remote regions of Canada, there has been a major crisis in recent years. There was also a lack of political will on the part of the former government.

Let us talk about the lumber crisis. For years, we asked for support to be given to our companies so that they could cope with what I would call a total injustice, which was imposed on us by the U.S government and producers. They placed duties on it even though we regularly won our case before the courts. This crisis lasted for 25 years, do not forget.

I have some doubts concerning the signing of the agreement proposed to us. First, this agreement is far from perfect. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the Americans will respect it for seven or nine years. They did not respect the earlier agreements, so they will find a way of not respecting this one either.

The federal government should therefore be extremely vigilant concerning the lumber agreement. Moreover, this agreement should be improved. It is totally unfair to impose on us a quota of 32% of the market, as is the case at present. In the context of free trade, the agreement submitted to us does not allow free trade. This agreement should definitely be amended over the years.

I got a bit off track; I was talking about employment insurance. I wanted to talk about the situation in the regions. We have had to deal with the softwood lumber crisis, the mad cow crisis, the completely unfair competition in the farming sector, particularly from the U.S., and a major crisis caused by globalization. The previous government had the means to intervene, as do the Americans, who do not hesitate to protect themselves. It did not, however, intervene at all in the textile and clothing sectors, among others, and in the so-called softer sectors in Canada. This has caused, in the past year, the loss of 120,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, including 36,000 in Quebec.

Unfortunately, I did not see anything in the budget in this connection. Nor have I noted the current government’s intention to react in accordance with the standards of international trade. Under the standards of the World Trade Organization, we are perfectly entitled to take action when a situation arises like the one that we have just been through in the past 12 months.

Furthermore, the workers in these sectors have been employed by the same company for 20 or 30 years; now they are 50, 55 or 60 years old. My colleague from Chambly—Borduas will certainly talk about it, since it is one of his pet projects. These people do not necessarily have sufficient training to enable them to be placed elsewhere or reclassified. So they have to be helped, at least so that they can live decently until they reach retirement age.

Actually, the government has expressed its intention to take action in this area. We will have to see, concretely, how this will unfold in the coming months. We in the Bloc Québécois are committed to this. For years we have been asking for the assistance program for older workers to be re-established and we will go on demanding it.

I will also continue to demand that an independent employment insurance fund be established. In my region, fewer than 40% currently have access to employment insurance. These include fishers and forest workers. These people have seasonal jobs. They cannot take their fishing boats out when there is two feet of ice on the St. Lawrence River. They have to rely on employment insurance. At present, as a result of the slash and burn approach taken by the former Liberal government since 1994, they find themselves without an income for five, six, eight or ten weeks in the spring. It may not be easy for them to get back to work either. Indeed, in order to return to work, labourers, for example, might have to invest in buying the proper attire to wear. Some of them just cannot afford it. It is as simple as that. So, some families have a hard time for many weeks in the spring.

We therefore have to establish an EI fund that will meet the needs of those workers who find themselves unemployed, one that will be managed by the workers and their employers, that is, those who pay into that fund.

The government has to stop dipping into the employment insurance fund. That is not its money.

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec minister of agriculture, fisheries and food, Yvon Vallières, denounced the minister's decision. He said it was not the time to increase the catch when the oversupply has already dropped prices.

How can the government support such an unacceptable decision by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, made at the expense of the entire shrimp industry, including that of Quebec, just for the sake of his own popularity at home in Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, while there is an oversupply of shrimp on global markets, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans could not come up with anything better than to allow a 7,000 tonne increase in quota to the shrimp fishers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Will the minister admit that he is in conflict of interest because in taking this decision he wanted to please the voters in his province to the detriment of the entire industry, which outside of Newfoundland and Labrador recommended a freeze on the quotas?

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in recent years I served with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, where we tackled the issue of infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the Speech from the Throne says absolutely nothing about federal infrastructures. In our regions, the majority of infrastructures are in an appalling state, having been abandoned years ago. The federal government is responsible for looking after its own infrastructures and ensuring that they are usable.

There is nothing in the throne speech to indicate that the newly elected government intends to take responsibility again for these infrastructures, and for repairing and appropriately maintaining them.

Like me, my colleague comes from a maritime region and, in his riding as well, there are infrastructures in terrible shape. I am referring in particular to small craft harbours that are the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The situation is not much better on the Transport Canada side.

The throne speech said absolutely nothing about managing the resource and the fishery. There was but one small word, the word “ocean”. That is all I saw. There was nothing in the throne speech to indicate a new approach to managing the resource and our oceans.