Jean-Yves Roy

[Association du cancer de l'Est du Québec, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this Friday, November 26, from 7 p.m. until midnight, the people of my region will have an opportunity to again show their generosity and solidarity for a good cause.

This will be the 15th annual Télé-Info for the eastern Quebec cancer association, a live broadcast from the studios of CFER-TV in Pointe-au-Père.

With this information and fund-raising activity, the association expects to collect some $115,000 with which to continue providing its many services. Télé-Info will feature testimonials from people affected by cancer and information on the services that are available.

The telethon will be hosted by none other than well-known TV personality Suzanne Lapointe, who has had a bout with cancer herself.

When we know that, within a few years, one person in two will experience cancer at some point in their lives, it is more important than ever to be informed and to take immediate action.

The theme of this 15th annual telethon will be “United for life”. I invite my fellow citizens to listen to their hearts and get out their cheque books, and unite for life.

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I really do not understand. The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier mentioned a few projects, I emphasize the words “few projects”, that received assistance in our regions.

However, I want to give him a very specific example. In recent years, in my region, the right hand of the federal government has been unaware what the left hand was doing. While we were trying to promote employment in our regions, and we succeeded in the Gaspé, thanks to our will and to the help of governments, the federal government was eliminating jobs. It eliminated important and well-paying jobs in the public service. It also eliminated jobs in other areas, including in the transport sector.

Today, when we talk about the help provided by Economic Development Canada, we are not talking about subsidies; these are not donations. More often than not, they are loans. Earlier, we talked about the assistance provided to the Gaspé. It is a loan, not a subsidy, that was granted. Moreover, contrary to what was said earlier, including by some Conservative members, the issue is still not completely settled.

I will give a very concrete example to the hon. member. In fact, his colleague sitting next to him will know exactly what I am talking about. The federal government is about to shut down the Cap-Chat camp for cadets, which creates 70 jobs. Yet, this is in an area where the unemployment rate is extremely high. Regional development should be based on structural projects, and this is such a project.

I could mention transport infrastructures. These are structural projects. Our roads should become highways, so that we can trade appropriately and be competitive. The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is experiencing the same situation. Whether it is highway 195 or highway 132, there should be appropriate transport infrastructures, and the federal government should be present.

Today, and I will conclude on this note, the majority of Canada Post offices are located in convenience stores. If this is what the government calls regional development and structural projects, then I have a problem understanding it.

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Gatineau, and I wonder what planet she has been living on. When I look at what is happening in the Gaspé peninsula, and what the federal government does there, I must say that I see total abandonment. Let me give you a few examples.

She talked about adjusted programs. Four or five years ago, the federal government decided to release $25 million, if I remember correctly. In five years, it has not been able to spend a third of this money, because federal programs at Canada Economic Development are totally ill-suited to our regions.

I will not talk about the mad cow crisis. There was $160 million left in the last program, and farmers were telling me again last week that this program is so badly designed that they cannot access this money.

I will not talk about the lumber crisis either, which destroyed thousands of jobs in my region. Plants had to be closed when all we were asking was for the government to support these companies.

I will not talk about federal infrastructure, about wharfs that are full of holes and in ruin, about airports the federal government divested itself of, our about non existent trains.

What planet do you come from to be able to talk about regional development? Let me give you an example. We are currently developing wind energy. Hydro-Québec and the Quebec government will spend $1 billion for this project, whereas the federal government will spend only $400 million in the whole country. What will we get from this? Hardly anything. Right now, we need help to develop new technologies and locate in our regions businesses that will be able to compete throughout the world.

You are talking about regional development, but you should wake up. Regional development is something happening in Quebec, and Quebeckers know how to go about their own development. We are asking the federal government to listen to us and work with us, and not to duplicate structures. Respond to that.

[David Desrosiers, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when we are young, we want to make our dreams of the future come true. But for someone who is only 24 and has just realized a dream that was expected to take many years to achieve, there is a real triumph.

That is what happened to David Desrosiers, who grew up in Matane and has become a vocalist and bass player in the group Simple Plan, known all over the world for its power pop music. Simple Plan sold 3 million copies of its first disc and launched its second album on October 26.

As soon as David joined this team of Quebec francophone musicians, the group was impressed by his talent, stage presence, sense of humour and easy rapport with the audience.

David Desrosiers is the pride of all who know him in Matane and an example to young people that dreams are worth believing in.

Congratulations, David, and lots of success in your international music career.

[Treaties Act, November 3rd, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-260, an act respecting the negotiation, approval, tabling and publication of treaties.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present, seconded by the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, the bill entitled An Act respecting the negotiation, approval, tabling and publication of treaties.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that treaties are first submitted to the House of Commons. Of course, we are talking here about major treaties. Following that initial step, there would have to be a true consultation of civil society by a parliamentary committee, before Parliament would vote on these treaties.

The objective is to ensure real transparency. Treaties have a bearing on the daily lives of people and, increasingly, they impact on everyone's life. Just think about free trade or the trade treaty. From now on, such treaties would have to be submitted to the House of Commons, presented to civil society through a parliamentary committee, and published in the Canada Gazette and on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, so that people could find out about their content.

The bill also seeks to ensure mandatory consultation of the provinces before negotiating a treaty on an issue that comes under their jurisdiction. We are asking that when a province is affected by a treaty, it be consulted before that treaty is signed and before the government makes a commitment on its behalf.

Of course, it is my hope that all members of the House will support and pass this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Shipping Act, October 18th, 2004]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this could be a joint committee. However, I do not think that officials can be accused of not reading the report. The government must have a political will. I believe this political will belong to the elected people. If the elected people who sit on the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans voted unanimously in favour of the report, then I believe it is up to the elected people opposite, government members and the minister responsible, to make their decision and propose solutions.

This is the elected people's responsibility. We are talking about a report prepared by the elected people and tabled before Parliament. It is also an unanimous report. It is incumbent upon the government to make its decision and to go forward with the recommendations contained in this report.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his question. Indeed, the report is unanimous. This is an extremely serious study that took the committee an enormous amount of time. This study was finished just before the election and the report was tabled in March 2004.

Indeed, the government, the Prime Minister, does not show a real willingness to renew democracy. If he had shown such a willingness, I think that the first action to take about this bill would have been to look at the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Perhaps it would have been necessary to introduce a different bill providing for the creation of an agency, as the standing committee asked for, and to divide up the mandates afterwards.

Of course, I have no problem with dividing up the mandates afterwards between the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or another other department, for example, the Department of Environment with regard to pollution. I have no problem with dividing up the mandates, but what is important is that we must have the means to fulfill the orders that will be given to us.

At the present time, the Canadian Coast Guard does not have the means to appropriately fulfill the orders that will be given to it.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. As a matter of fact, the report I have here is the March 2004 report, but it is the second one tabled by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and it is a unanimous report. One should not think the 18 recommendations came from opposition members only. This is an important unanimous report describing the sorry state the Coast Guard is in.

The 18 recommendations in this report should have been implemented already. They should have been included in the government's priorities. They should be implemented as soon as possible if we really want to have a Coast Guard capable of carrying out its mandate, including in matters of security. I am talking here about the security of fishers and other people using our waterways.

Right now, one cannot say the Canadian Coast Guard is capable of giving fishers and other people the assurance they are safe. That reminds me of something which happened last spring. The Coast Guard did not have any money to buy oil to run its ships, and they could not sail.

If the government does not change its ways, it might as well do away with the Canadian Coast Guard.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree. This is what I said. The government is transferring responsibilities that already belonged to the Department of Transport in the past. In fact, this is simply reverting back. It must be well understood, with the bill, that what is being transferred to the Department of Transport was already under the Department of Transport in the past. It was transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is now transferred back to the Department of Transport.

The real problem is the bill. Of course, it is totally a mechanics bill. When this bill comes into force, who will oversee the transfer? Who will be responsible for its implementation? Of course, it will be the Department of Transport, but who will it be in the field? It is the Canadian Coast Guard. If it does not have the means, like now, to fulfill its mandates, even though a mechanical transfer would be made between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport, we will not be ahead. It does not solve the real problem.

Indeed, the real problem is that the Canadian Coast Guard is an underfunded agency and that, to fulfill its mandates, it needs funding. It needs to renew its fleet. It needs to renew its equipment. During 10 to 15 years, the government did not fund it enough. This means that we are now finding ourselves in a very difficult situation. We will have to invest from $140 million to $150 million a year, which should have been done in the past. It means that, today, we would not have a $1 billion problem on our hands.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill we have before us, Bill C-3.

The sole purpose of this bill is to transfer certain responsibilities from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, particularly responsibility for the Canadian Coast Guard, to the Department of Transport.

The bill does not propose any really major changes. As the government has said, there are no new costs involved in the transfer of responsibilities.

Hon. members need perhaps to be reminded that these responsibilities have been with Transport in the past. If I am not mistaken, these responsibilities, including that of the Canadian Coast Guard, were transferred to Fisheries and Oceans in the early 1990s. So this is a kind of backward step. It is a kind of return to the previous situation, after the realization that the transfer to Fisheries and Oceans was not really working.

In December 2003, the government transferred the responsibilities we are discussing today to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by order in council. These responsibilities needed, of course, to be in the legislation, which is why the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act will be amended.

This does not, unfortunately, really solve the problem of the Canadian Coast Guard. This body has numerous responsibilities. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans studied the role of the Canadian Coast Guard on two occasions, and in March 2004 tabled a unanimous report containing 18 recommendations on the Coast Guard, its role and its importance.

The government ought perhaps to have taken its cue from that report and introduced a bill making the Canadian Coast Guard an independent agency. That was the gist of the main recommendation. As an agency, it could fulfill responsibilities serving both the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in fact even all departments concerned. This was a very important recommendation that should have compelled the government to make the Coast Guard an independent agency as soon as possible.

The other problem affecting the Coast Guard in particular is underfunding. I think everyone from industry people, to the Coast Guard itself, to parliamentarians agrees. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, among others, found that the Canadian Coast Guard is completely underfunded. In the current state of its fleet and with its lack of adequate human resources, it could never meet expectations.

I would simply remind hon. members that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans reported that the Canadian Coast Guard is rusting out and the fleet is clearly undercapitalized. That is the position of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

The average age of Canadian Coast Guard vessels is 20.2 years and the median age is 19 years; for the larger vessels the average age is 24.8 years with a median age of 22 years. Almost 80% of the fleet has reached or passed its half-life, and nearly 50% of the vessels have five years or less of useful life left. The picture is bleaker when considering large vessels, for which the respective numbers are 95% and 39%.

As reported by the Auditor General, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans estimated in 1999 the replacement cost of all of the large vessels was at $2.2 billion. That seems like a lot of money, but if it had been invested at the time, in the early 1990s, to replace the fleet, the figure would have been a lot less, and all the vessels and equipment of the Canadian Coast Guard could gradually have been replaced.

Since September 2001, the Canadian Coast Guard has faced a nearly catastrophic situation, with new mandates. Emergency investments have had to be made and funding is still completely inadequate.

We are talking about a cost of $2.2 billion, but simply to replace the large vessels over 30 years old, it would cost $750 million. Obviously the main challenge will be to replace the Coast Guards ships and other equipment. As Commander John Adams, Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, said, “—based on a renewal rate of only 4% for the asset base, the coast guardshould be investing between $140 and $150 million in capital funding into our infrastructure each year”. That is what should have been done in the past, of course. If there had been an annual investment of $140 to $150 million, or even $100 million, for 10 or 15 years, the problem would not exist today. We would now have a Canadian coast guard much better equipped to fulfil its mandates and meet the needs.

As the Coast Guard Commissioner said, “Our budget over the last ten years has been in the order of $30 million to $40 million”. This represents a shortfall of about $100 million per year for the Coast Guard, just for replacing certain equipment. Now we find ourselves in a situation that could be called practically impossible. The Canadian Coast Guard's fleet needs to be replaced or modernized, and large amounts of money must be invested to achieve the desired results, the results the public, the Coast Guard and the industry all want to see.

This is what has happened over the years. Since the infrastructure was not replaced, it is aging and deteriorating. Moreover, there has been another problem. The Coast Guard is clearly understaffed. Today, in my opinion, the Canadian Coast Guard is unable to respond to all calls for its services.

The bill before us transfers the responsibilities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Department of Transport. However, in the end, no money is allocated. Who will assume these responsibilities? Who will meet the needs expressed? It is very difficult to tell. The bill is not at all clear on this. Do we want to create another structure within the Department of Transport to meet the needs that are transferred to that department, or will we use, among others, the Canadian Coast Guard? If we rely on the Coast Guard, it goes without saying that we will have to invest more in its equipment and also in its personnel.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans noticed something else during its review of the Canadian Coast Guard. I am referring to the difficulty that Coast Guard personnel is currently experiencing in fulfilling its mandate. We are talking about people who cannot take training courses, because there is not enough personnel to replace them. This means that they cannot take development courses. That includes the whole management framework, since managers themselves are not replaced because there are not enough of them. The result is that the Coast Guard personnel is asked to do too much. After a while, these people get tired. So, the Canadian Coast Guard is subjected to totally unwarranted pressure.

Let us not forget that the Coast Guard must fulfill all kinds of duties, including research and rescue operations. This is very important for recreational boaters and fishermen, among others, particularly in my region, but also on the west coast. Indeed, fishermen must travel further at sea to find the resources, thus putting their lives at greater risk.

This is another reason why the Canadian Coast Guard is subjected to greater pressure now than in the past. It is not necessarily equipped to meet the needs or to be able to properly carry out its mandate with respect to search and rescue. We have seen some pretty tragic cases recently. The same is true of emergency environmental response.

At present, with the growing maritime traffic—which is not likely to diminish, given the import and export activities of both Quebec and Canada—pollution is indeed one of the biggest problems, because of the ships either sailing or docking in our waters.

Naturally, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans reports that, currently, the source of the majority of discharges of substances such as oil at sea is unknown or, if known, impossible to be acted on to resolve the problem.

Also, the Canadian Coast Guard does have a role to play within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to the protection of fisheries resources , in terms of search, among others. Here again, we can say that the Coast Guard is unable to meet the needs.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans therefore made 18 recommendations. As I indicated earlier, the main one is for a renewed Canadian Coast Guard to be established as anindependent civilian agency. That is the committee's wish, and I think that the government should have taken heed.

Another recommendation of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was that the Canadian Coast Guard be under Transport Canada but, before, that it become a stand-alone agency, that is, an independent civilian agency. We can see that some responsibilities are being transferred to Transport Canada, and we know that the Canadian Coast Guard used to come under that department. Perhaps all this could have taken place before the government introduced the bill before us.

Why transfer some responsibilities to Transport Canada? Because that is the lead department for maritime security. And, following the events of September 11, this role was of course expanded. Transport Canada is working with all security agencies, and the Canadian Coast Guard should also be involved.

The Department of Transport is also responsible for shipping traffic in general, and a major part of the Coast Guard responsibilities involve shipping traffic safety. Right now, we get many complaints from people who live on the shores of the St. Lawrence River about shipping traffic, and especially about bank erosion. Ships travelling at high speed in the channel generate powerful waves, which damage part of the banks of the St. Lawrence River.

One important role of the government would be to regulate the traffic in order to limit the speed of large ships. The Coast Guard would manage this traffic, which, for currently does not seem to be controlled. We do know that the speed of ships in the St. Lawrence River channel is regulated only by implicit agreement between ship owners and the pilots. Shipping generates erosion and other problems.

There is another crucial element in connection with traffic on the St. Lawrence River and towards the Great Lakes, and it has been examined by the fisheries and oceans standing committee. I am talking about the invasion of our waterways by exotic species that are harmful to our resources. This problem will only get bigger. The Department of Transport and the Coast Guard have a role to play to prevent this kind of problem.

The Department of Transport and the Coast Guard could play a very important role, that of inspecting and cleaning vessels entering our waters so that no more invasive species will be brought in.

Another recommendation was that the Canadian Coast Guard be given full operational funding. I have underscored right from the start that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans found the Coast Guard to be seriously under funded. The March 2004 report recommended to the government that it be properly funded. We know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is one of the least well funded of departments. I would say it has had the smallest budget increase since 1993, along with the biggest cuts. Even though some have said that it is precisely because the Coast Guard is connected to Fisheries and Oceans that it is underfunded, I am only partially in agreement with that. Whether the Canadian Coast Guard is transferred to the Department of Transport in whole or in part, whether it is made into an agency or not, if it gets no more funding that when it reported to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the situation will not be corrected. It will remain unchanged.

The Government of Canada must gradually invest in the Canadian Coast Guard. This must be done regularly, annually, so as to renew all infrastructures. Compared with other coast guards around the world, the Canadian Coast Guard is among the poorest and least well organized. Looking at the United States, we can see that their coast guard reports to the armed forces; it is very well equipped and can fulfil the mandates assigned to it.

One of the recommendations of the March 2004 report entitled “Safe, Secure, Sovereign: Reinventing the Canadian Coast Guard” reads:

That the Canadian Coast Guard be given the explicit authority to act on behalf of other agencies—

That is what I was just saying. If we create an independent agency, it should have, and I quote

“the explicit authority to act on behalf of other agencies, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Transport Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canada Revenue Agency, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada in situations where there is reasonable cause to believe that Canadian laws are being broken.”

At present, I think there has been some weakening of these mandates through a number of agencies and departments. That means we are now going through a similar process to what happened in the United States. That country created an agency and gave it selected powers taken from other departments. I think that is what should be done here. We should create an agency whose role will be to coordinate and fulfil mandates. It is a role that could be given to the Canadian Coast Guard, if the government is willing to establish it as an independent agency.

We do not completely support this bill. We agree with certain things, but disagree with others. We feel this bill, as it stands, will not improve anything about the way the government fulfils its mandates or the way the Coast Guard can fulfil its mandate in the future.

In conclusion, the important thing is to make investing in the Canadian Coast Guard a priority. It must become a real agency and it must have the means to fulfil its mandate.