Jean-Yves Roy

[Fisheries, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the situation for groundfish fishers in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspésie is not rosy and many of them want the government to buy back their fishing permits. A buyback program would better protect the resources and the remaining fishers would then be able to hope for a quota increase.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans take action and promise right now to buy back permits from the fishers who are having difficulties?

[Espace Drar, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate a firm from my riding, Espace Drar, which recently won a national award from the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects in the National Citation group for its project entitled “À propos du Blanc”.

These awards are given to professionals who have demonstrated excellence in the landscape architecture profession, and the National Citation is given in recognition of certain outstanding features of a submission.

Despite a limited budget, the “À propos du Blanc” project was notable for its innovative, ephemeral, and spontaneous nature which, in an artistic and architectural way, tells the story of the Matapédia.

I should also mention that the project was designed in collaboration with Les Jardins de Métis, a world renowned site.

This award demonstrates that the Lower St. Lawrence region has an architectural wealth that cannot be denied.

I congratulate Espace Drar for its award and for its contribution to the discovery of our region.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I now know that my speech hit the target because it woke up one of our Liberal colleagues. Let me comment on the issue he raised about the guaranteed income supplement. It certainly was not the Liberal members who criticized the program and who carried out research in their ridings. After two months, they had to send a flyer to the taxpayers apologizing for their mismanagement. That is what happened!

The hon. member mentioned the $15 million assistance program, but it took them years to start spending the money. People heard about these $15 million during the 2000 election campaign. Once again, they are making promises. They do not seem to understand that the attitude of the government is hurting the regions, and this is one of the worst governments we have seen, especially where regions are concerned. I have never seen so little invested in services and so much taken away.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

When the Minister of Finance delivered his budget speech on March 23, 2004, I was expecting to see surprises. I told myself that the party responsible for the sponsorship scandal was heading for an election so it would certainly want to give a little more to the public and the regions to try to beat out the Bloc Quebecois members. My colleague just asked a question.

Moreover, I would like to point out to the public that the budget document is roughly 450 pages long. I would recommend it to anyone who suffers from insomnia. Just read a page or two every night. The obscure language used in the budget speech would certainly put anyone to sleep very quickly.

I was curious. I told myself I would begin by reading the section on the regions. This did not take long because there is absolutely nothing about the regions in the budgetary plan that was presented to us on March 23, 2004.

I asked myself what the people in the regions wanted to see in the budget, in particular the people from my region. First, they wanted a real reform of the employment insurance system.

Since 1993, in the riding of Matapédia—Matane alone, the government opposite has taken $58 million annually from the pockets of the constituents. In so doing, it forces them to live through the spring gap and they end up collecting welfare. The government automatically encourages people to go on welfare for income security.

This is another burden placed on the Government of Quebec, which is responsible for supporting its citizens. More than this, by destabilizing family finances, we create a gamut of social problems that, once again, the government of the province has to address.

It is not just my region that is affected. We could talk about the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. The constituents of this new riding have been losing $65 million annually since 1993. The Liberal government has taken this money right out of the pockets of the constituents.

Knowing this, I think that the government should have provided compensation by changing the employment insurance program to make it more accessible. The fact is that, in 1993, 83% of workers who lost their jobs qualified for the program. Today, only about 40% of them do. Worse still, the rate is only around 30% to 35% for women and young people.

But there is something even worse for our regions regarding employment insurance. Currently, because of the measures taken by the Liberal government, young people are leaving our regions. I will explain why this is happening. It is easy to understand.

Take the case of a young person who graduates from university or college, particularly in areas that relate to our region, such as tourism, fishing or forestry. As we all know, this young person will end up doing seasonal work. One cannot go fishing when there is six feet of ice on the St. Lawrence River or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and one does not cut wood in the middle of winter, when there is six feet of snow in the bush.

Of course, these young people have no choice but to rely on employment insurance. However, because they must first work 910 hours to qualify for the first time, they never qualify.

When the government boasts and claims that 83% of workers qualify for employment insurance, it is absolutely false. Fewer than 40% of workers qualify. And the rate is even lower among young people.

When young people have no income in the fall, what do they do? They go and work in large urban centres. They have no choice. They leave the region and do not come back. This is why, currently, the employment insurance program plays a major role in the fact that young people are leaving our regions.

We could also talk about the softwood lumber crisis. This is another issue that was not mentioned in the budget. We are fully aware of the fact that, since the beginning of the softwood lumber crisis, our regions, and particularly my riding of Matapédia—Matane, have lost hundreds of jobs.

At the present time, all of these workers cannot qualify for EI either, because there were just small programs made available to them, such a minor contribution that they are now on welfare.

These are skilled workers who are going to be lost because of government inaction and its unwillingness to come up with phase two of the softwood lumber assistance program. They will, if they are able, move out of the regions and find work elsewhere. Otherwise, they will end up on welfare, as many of them already are.

There is one other thing that affects our region, that is the riding of Matapédia—Matane. Because the federal government's actions are encouraging young people to move out, this is a region with a very much aging population.

Now as you all know—we have said it many times—over the years the federal government has stolen a large chunk of the guaranteed income supplement from seniors. In the case of the riding of Matapédia—Matane, we are talking of 1,200 people who were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement for years.

In a twist of fate, when we were able to identify these people and they managed to get the supplement, the federal government gave them a mere one year's retroactivity, whereas some of them had been eligible but had not received it for three, four, five years, or even longer. The mean-spirited government went back a single year only, while it will go back ten years if a person owes income tax, and will impose what I would call an exorbitant rate of interest.

Now for health, they announce $2 billion. This is the fifth announcement, at least the fifth, and the $2 billion is already spent.

There is another announcement relating to health, the creation of the Canada health agency. The first thing that comes to our minds is: does Quebec need a Canada health agency? The answer: no. Because one of the key roles of such an agency is immunization against infectious diseases.

I have good news for the federal government. We have been giving vaccinations for a long time in Quebec, and we already have an agency. Does that mean that we Quebeckers will have to be vaccinated twice against infectious diseases? That is nonsense. An investment of $500 million is announced to create a Canadian public health agency, but no one even bothers to check if such an agency already exists in Quebec. So, there are no negotiations with the Quebec government to determine whether or not compensation should be provided, allowing Quebec to opt out of a program of as little interest to us as to all Canadians.

There is one very important element that nearly went unnoticed in the budget, and which I want to highlight. I will read from the document. It is in the budget summary that was presented to us. I will read the paragraph that tells us what the government intends to do.

As well, the Cabinet Committee on Expenditure Review is examining all programs to identify at least $3 billion annually in savings within four years—

That is $3 billion multiplied by four years. We know full well that this program review means that, again, jobs will be lost in the regions.

We saw it with the program review at the Department of Human Resources Development. Practically all the regional offices were closed down in favour of a huge bureaucracy in Ottawa. Precious jobs were taken away from the regions and moved to the national capital region. Ottawa has been thriving and growing at the expense of those who live in the regions, but these people are not getting their due.

In conclusion, I would like to quote the candidate from the sponsorship scandal party in the riding of Matapédia—Matane. He said this on March 20, in Quebec City. He was so discouraged that, during a meeting with his colleagues who want to run in the election, he said, “You are not giving me anything to defend myself with in my riding. You are telling me to go and get buried alive”. I am not the one saying this. These are the words of the candidate who wants to run for the sponsorship scandal party in the riding of Matapédia—Matane.

This truly reflects what the regions have been getting from this government since 2000, and indeed since 1993: services are taken away from the regions and the people who live in these regions are deprived of everything they need.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague who was discussing the budget, and I am a little surprised.

His speech seemed excellent to me, but there is a question that intrigues me when the Conservative Party of Canada is speaking. I consider that the budget before us is an extremely conservative one. I think that the Conservative Party could not have done a better job. In terms of providing services to the people, particularly to the poorest in society, it appears to me that there is absolutely nothing in the budget in this regard. There are no policies when it comes to services to the poorest.

Let us take for example the guaranteed income supplement refund. When I talk about the refund, I am talking about the full refund of the guaranteed income supplement. We are talking about $3.2 billion that was taken from the elderly over the years. The government is only refunding one year retroactively.

When you owe taxes to the government, it goes back 10 years. Indeed, the government will change the Income Tax Act to be able to go back up to 10 years to collect unpaid taxes. However, when the government owes money to people such as seniors living on a small pension, the retroactive period is one year only.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this issue.

[François Bourque, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a young man from Gaspé by the name of François Bourque, who recently won the world junior downhill combined championship in Maribor, Slovenia.

His performance was one of the best at these championships, an additional honour on top of his previous two bronze medals plus a gold in the World Junior Super G in 2003. Quebec's hopes are pinned on this young downhill ski ace.

He has, moreover, been given the honour of having a run named after him at New Richmond's Pin Rouge ski resort.

François Bourque is Quebec's alpine skier of the future, and we feel it is a sure bet that he will have many more medals to his credit as the years go by. Congratulations to our Quebec champion; may he have many more equally great years ahead of him.

[Atkins & Frères, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Atkins & Frères, a company in my riding that recently won the national Renaud-Cyr award in the Artisan category.

This is a national merit award for the restaurant and food industry in recognition of a company that has made a remarkable contribution to Quebec gastronomy. The national merit awards are one of the five major events for the bio-food industry in Quebec.

Located in Mont-Louis, Atkins & Frères has built its reputation on its seafood products and traditional smoking processes, and has helped put the Gaspé Peninsula and the Lower St. Lawrence on the national gastronomic map.

This award is proof of the abundance of fine foods waiting to be discovered in the Gaspé Peninsula and the Lower St. Lawrence region.

I want to congratulate Atkins & Frères for winning this award and for helping make the bounties of our region better known.

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it was in 1997, 1998 and 1999 that they needed it the most. Hundreds of families suffered extreme losses, while the Bloc Quebecois alerted the government many times about the desperate situation of North Shore fishers.

Does the minister realize that the government's decision to centralize in Ottawa a program designed for the regions caused serious hardship to hundreds of fishers and their families?

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, fishers have had to deal with reduced quotas and a moratorium, and, because of this government's incompetence, they were kept in the dark about specific employment insurance programs that were meant for them.

How does the government explain its negligence in denying several hundred fishers from the North Shore benefits they desperately needed?

[Open Government Act, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-462 introduced by my colleague from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot. I think he was a journalist, if my memory serves me. I was too.

We have questions about the Access to Information Act, which under today's bill would become the Open Government Act. As a journalist, I have often tried in the past to obtain information under the existing legislation, and it was extremely complicated and difficult. One need only mention having been a journalist for the request to be denied.

I just listened to the speech given by my government colleague. He reminded us of the events of September 11. He said that, since September 11, we have realized how vulnerable we were and that the information provided was perhaps too specific; that perhaps we gave out too much information. Ultimately, that is what he is telling us.

This means that the government wants to maintain its bubble culture—not a glass bubble, unless it is an extremely dark glass bubble—to prevent people from having access to information. However, a government is a public institution. It is an institution funded and created by taxpayers and not the other way around.

This kind of culture seems to run counter to how things should normally work in a democracy. Normally, in a democracy, the citizens create a system and a government that is accountable to them.

As my colleague from Saint-Jean mentioned, certain aspects of national security, which in any case must be extremely well defined and clarified, can be excluded. There are also aspects relating to personal and corporate information. In the latter's case, this ensures that companies can avoid getting ripped off literally by their competitors. Otherwise, there is no valid reason for preventing people from having access to information that the government should provide.

I was reading the committee's report, which my colleague from Saint-Jean referred to. It should be noted that this is the final report, which was tabled in November 2001. SInce then, despite the many problems identified with the Access to Information Act, the government has not budged.

I understand why my colleague introduced a bill that is as detailed as it is important. Earlier, he said that agencies, for one, did not have real access to information and that crown corporations, government agencies with increasing authority, were included in this bill.

I want to give an example from the past few years. This government has used taxpayers' money to create a number of foundations. Obviously, we do not know how these foundations are managing these funds. What will we get? There will be an annual report that only a few people, such as specialized accountants, will be able to understand. Previously, we were unable to obtain any information.

Consider the example of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Obviously a number of foundations were created, including ones in health, and the government put hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars into these foundations. Consequently, this government was not accountable. No one was truly able to obtain access to information about how the funds allocated to these foundations were being managed and spent, in other words, how the funds had been used.

Since September 11, 2001, there has been a kind of almost panic at this level. We are seeing a tendency to restrict all information, manage things in secret and inform the fewest possible people about what is really going on.

The bigger the government, the more difficult it is for the public to understand how it operates and to obtain information. The bigger the government, the more it should seek to be transparent so as to be accessible and provide the public with real information.

In the report, I also read that my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, including the members for Saint-Jean and Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, had made recommendations with important components.

One of the recommendations was for anyone whose request for information had been denied to be provided more information about the reason why. In fact, these days, public servants make a lot of decisions about what people should be told and what not. It is very difficult to say who has the authority to decide what people should be told and what not when it concerns routine, normal and common information.

The documents we receive in response to access to information requests are literally impossible to read. All that remains are “ands” and commas or just about, as we have seen for ourselves. Such documents are very discouraging for individuals. They provide no information, so results have to be almost invented or guessed at. The meeting or gathering has be almost reconstructed in order to find out what happened and learn anything.

The other factor that seems important is requiring the federal institutions involved to be accountable to citizens. When we talk about being accountable, we mean knowing how many requests for access to information the government has received, how many of those it responded to and in what length of time and in what manner. This is very important. It is a type of quality control that is needed under the law. We need to verify whether the law has truly been enforced properly and whether the bureaucracy has truly responded to citizens.

Changes are proposed in the bill, specifically with respect to time frames. That is another thing. Time frames must be respected when there is a request for access to information. People should be able to obtain a response within the time frame set out by law, not six months later. Sometimes people have to keep returning to the charge. It is extremely frustrating for someone to make such a request and almost never get a response.

Earlier my colleague also talked about opinion polls. We have seen this recently. A poll was bought 10 times, I think, at a cost of $27,000 each time. If the Auditor General had not investigated we might never have known. We have just found out which departments purchased the polls.

How can these things happen? It happens because there is no transparency in the government. The culture in the federal government needs to change on this score. We need to get to the point where those who are elected and those who work within the bureaucracy understand that they are there to serve the public, not the reverse. When, in a democracy, people think that the public is there to serve them, then the democracy has a problem.

Since we heard our colleague speak about this earlier, I will close with a look at how the federal government uses the information provided to it. Every citizen has provided an enormous amount of information to governments at all levels—federal, provincial and municipal. In general, this information is shared with the senior levels. The registration of information about citizens begins at birth. September 11 was mentioned. Governments have given themselves more and more power to cross-check this information in order to get to know every citizen almost intimately, knowing almost everything about them, as soon as an individual is born.

This is extremely dangerous when a government has a non-transparent culture, because it may use this information for other purposes than those for which it was gathered. This was seen in the case of HRDC, when information was sent by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Ordinary citizens were penalized as a result.

I will conclude by saying that the act must be amended. This is an excellent bill, despite the fact that it contains a few elements we disagree with. Nonetheless, I am pleased to have spoken on this bill.