Jean-Yves Roy

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the bill before the House. In fact, this concerns the referral to committee of Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

Obviously, we agree with the underlying principle of the bill, which is to amend the Canada Elections Act to recognize small political parties. We must make a distinction here between a registered political party and a party recognized in the House, as my colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans mentioned earlier. Previously under the Canada Elections Act, as the Supreme Court ruling stated, a party had to endorse a minimum of 50 candidates during a general election in order to be a registered political party.

This was extremely difficult for small political parties. For example, a new political party had to endorse 50 candidates, have at least 50 ridings with a candidate, who, in my opinion, had few means to make their ideas heard. This presented various difficulties in many ridings.

We agree with the amendments to the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act recommended by the Supreme Court. Naturally, we agree with the principle underlying this bill. Various things will have to be clarified to ensure that a political party is defined. This will require careful attention. What does political party mean? What does it mean in practical terms?

A clear and precise definition is required. That is why this bill must be considered in committee and amended if need be. We need and must agree on a real definition, in order to prevent organizations—I will not mention any names—without any interest in public affairs from being recognized as political parties and benefiting from tax credits normally given to political parties.

This also gives us an opportunity to talk about what democracy is. In the Bloc Quebecois, we had adopted the tradition promoted by the Parti quebecois during the 1970s concerning electoral legislation. We set ourselves the objective of getting the most people possible involved. It was our true and clear intention to recruit many members in order to enable the population as a whole to express itself at all levels of the party, from the local to the national levels in Quebec.

Over the years, I believe the Bloc Quebecois has achieved that objective. First of all, the Bloc banked on the public funding of a political party. As well, it has defended in the House, pretty much consistently, the changes required to the Elections Act, so that, among other things, corporate contributions to political parties would now be banned.

Finally, this past year, after a great many years of major debates, the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in having federal politics cleaned up, as Mr. Lévesque had done in Quebec. This is very important, because this kind of approach made it possible to improve Quebec politics and will, I hope, have the same effect on federal politics.

With all that is going on, and has gone on, we are still far from the objective of this new law. I hope we will be able to solve this problem at the federal political level. This past week, with all of its focus on sponsorships, we were hearing that this was how politics works in Quebec. A statement like that is totally false.

We know very well that politics in Quebec have been cleaned up since the 1970s, and such things could never have happened under our present electoral legislation. Our elections act was brought in by the Parti quebecois and has been upheld by subsequent governments. It has the approval of the National Assembly and of the people of Quebec.

When we hear such statements, we know they are totally unacceptable. A person would really have to be lacking in judgment and knowledge to say such things.

That also gives us the opportunity to say that in order for our democracy to exist and flourish, it is necessary that the public be able to participate. Of course, if more opportunities are opened up for the creation of political parties that will defend different opinions and different ideals, that can only be healthy for democracy, because it will encourage more citizens to participate in democratic life.

Considering the recent history of general elections, we see that there has been a gradual disaffection of the citizens with politics, particularly federal politics, if we look at the percentages of people who bother to get out and vote.

At present, there is a danger in letting things slide, making it easy for citizens not to be involved in or committed to a political party or even politics in general. If we want democracy to continue to exist and flourish and have the effects we all hope it will have, it is essential that the majority of people go to the bother of voting and participating in our democracy. In a democracy, the usual method of participating and sharing ideas involves political parties.

We are in favour of an amendment to the bill. In any event, the Supreme Court gives the government no choice. The Elections Act has to be amended and so does the Income Tax Act so that political parties wanting to register are able to sell memberships and collect contributions. All this will be done within the new framework established following much debate and the Bloc Quebecois' incessant demands that federal government politics be cleaned up.

The Supreme Court gave the government one year to achieve this objective. At the end of that year, the need to present 50 candidates will be eliminated. From the Supreme Court ruling to the end of the one-year deadline, the bill has to be adopted and the necessary changes made. It is absolutely imperative that through this bill, we give small political parties every opportunity to form and express their points of view and ideas.

Naturally, several changes have been proposed by the government. We probably will not agree with all the changes presented and I think that is normal, but they have to be closely examined in committee.

For instance, we are told that for a party to be formed, it needs at least 250 members who have signed a statement declaring their membership in the party. That is the minimum. To create and register a party, to have it prosper and to have candidates in each riding, a membership of 250 is not much. We should perhaps reconsider this requirement to ensure that the political party is serious about registering. Our democracy needs to benefit from this. Contrary to what might happen, democracy must not be ridiculed, but applied properly. The public must be able to take part in it.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 16th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, who will convincingly point out, I am sure, the shortcomings of the Speech from the Throne recently delivered by the government.

One sentence in the throne speech struck me, because I do not quite get it. On page 14, the issue of regional development is raised. We are told the regions should be affected by economic development just like the rest of the country and that we should ensure they can reap the benefits of the 21st century economy.

The throne speech mentions our farms as well as our forest, miningand fishing industries. I am particularly interested in the fishing industry since I am the fishing critic for my party, so I will get back to this issue later on.

On page 14, the throne speech states:

This will be achieved primarily through the efforts of Canadians themselves.

And quite ironically, it adds:

But government has an essential enabling role.

If the government is content with its role as a stimulus, it is obvious that we will not get very far. As for us, in our region, I can tell you that we have been studied in many ways for many years. We have been stimulated in every way possible and today we still find ourselves in a very difficult economic situation.

We find ourselves in an extremely difficult economic situation, especially because we used to make a living from fishing. Ever since this government was elected, in 1993, we have faced a moratorium on groundfishing.

We have had a moratorium, in fact, and it has been a total economic catastrophe in the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé, but not only in my riding. It has been an economic catastrophe in all the Atlantic provinces, especially Newfoundland, as well as the Gaspé.

Thus, in 1993, we found ourselves facing a moratorium. We were promised that all possible steps would be taken to re-establish the stocks. Unfortunately last year, after 10 years of governance by the current government, we found ourselves faced with a new moratorium on groundfishing, particularly for the cod fishery.

Ten years later, we have realized that not only have we made no progress, but we are still in the same situation. Once again, the same regions are affected. The East has been affected and struck hard by the fisheries and groundfishing crisis.

In 1993, the government proposed a program intended to boost our economies, intended to get our economies to develop, intended to create economic diversification so that people could live, and so that people in the rest of the country would have access to these services.

Unfortunately, since 1993, we have seen that, on the one hand, there was a program, but, on the other hand, the government began to slash all the other programs.

If we just think of the cuts in employment insurance that used to provide a great many seasonal workers with a decent income. Today, not even 35% of the women, for example, who worked in the business, in the fish plants, can receive employment insurance. We can see that it is a major factor in impoverishing regions like ours.

We can also talk about the forestry sector. It is the same thing. We can also talk about tourism. The changes to the employment insurance program and the criteria for young people once they leave school seem a bit ruthless.

One very concrete example comes to mind, particularly with regard to tourism. Young people are being trained in the tourism industry in our region. They work for one season, but since it is still seasonal work, naturally, they do not have access to employment insurance, because they have to accumulate at least 910 hours before they can access EI benefits.

The result of the government's attitude is that young people are encouraged to leave the regions for the major urban centres in order to earn a decent living. Obviously, these young people will not stay in the regions without a decent income. Unfortunately, we are the ones training them. They are our young people and we are unable to keep them, because we do not have the appropriate means or measures to do so.

There is another extremely important element. In the throne speech—and this affects my region in particular—the government said, “We will develop new and environmental technologies”.

What is the federal government doing currently to develop wind power? This program will receive $260 million over fifteen years. This is nothing compared to what went into the tar sands or Hibernia, for example. The government invested $60 billion over the years in oil and gas production.

A $260 million program over fifteen years is announced. I consider this pathetic. We hope to use this kind of program to develop wind power in regions like ours. The Bloc Quebecois had asked for more money. If much more substantial investments were made, up to 24,000 jobs could be created. There would be regional economic spinoffs, and benefits for manufacturing plants in Montreal and elsewhere, with a minimum of 24,000 jobs created.

Let us be conservative and say that if we simply double production incentives per kilowatt-hour, this would create 10,000 jobs, if the government bothered. When we say double, we simply mean doubling the $260 million invested over fifteen years. So, we should invest twice as much so to enable wind power to become an established industry.

This is a program that has been launched by Hydro Québec and the former Quebec government that could produce some interesting results. We know that in our region, and particularly in the Maritimes, winds are strong and could be used to produce that type of energy.

If we want to protect our environment and help our economy to diversify and draw on more than natural resources, we will have to invest more in new energies, particularly in wind energy, and that does not seem to be the way the government is going.

I could also mention the case of Bennett Environmental, which right now is a threat to all the resources in Chaleur Bay. But I will come back to that later.

I have talked about employment insurance and about the fact that the current government has abandoned the provinces. This is true both for air and for rail transportation. The current government has abandoned all transportation services. Regions like ours feel the effects of this every day. This is a major element that is totally absent from the throne speech.

There is another important element that affects us in a very specific way. We are talking about the softwood lumber crisis that has not yet been resolved and that is affecting us significantly. We could also talk about mad cow disease that, in my opinion, was very poorly managed by the current government. This government has launched a program to address a crisis that, at the outset, affected mainly western beef producers, while agriculture in Quebec and in the other provinces was extremely different.

In conclusion, I obviously cannot agree with what has been submitted in the throne speech. To me this is a lot of rhetoric. There does not seem to be a future for my region with the current government.

[Employment Insurance, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, like the Bloc Quebecois, the Auditor General is once again condemning the surplus in the employment insurance fund. However, during the 2000 elections, many ministers came to our ridings to make empty promises. These promises were made three and one half years ago, and the Auditor General is speaking out against the raid on the employment insurance fund.

Does the government intend to take immediate action, or is it trying to pull the same trick it did last time, which was to make promises during the election campaign and then forget everything as usual?

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, during this debate and particularly yesterday, I listened intently and I especially re-read some statements made by some speakers, particularly on the government side.

I heard members, and particularly the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, repeatedly accusing the opposition, saying that it was the opposition that was filibustering and causing the democratic deficit.

I have a lot of difficulty accepting that the government, which introduced the motion, blame the opposition. Indeed, this is worth mentioning. It is not the opposition that introduced the motion. It is the government that introduced this motion whose aim is, as members reminded the House, to bring back to the House bills that were dropped following prorogation last November.

It is not because of the opposition that the House of Commons was prorogued last November. It is not because of the opposition that we did not sit as planned in November, December and January. It is not because of the opposition, it is because of infighting within the governing party.

At one point, the situation had become intolerable for the former government. I should say for the former prime minister, because it is not the former government, since we are back again today with the same government in front of us. All that has changed in this government are a few titles and people who have been moved around, but this is still the same governing party and the same government.

It is because the feud between the former prime minister and the current Prime Minister had come to a point where government operations were paralyzed, and it was virtually impossible to legislate. This feud and the problems were so blatant that, at one point, someone made a decision and said, “We will prorogue the House. We have no other choice”.

Of course, as my colleague from Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis said earlier, this bothered the current Prime Minister. It is causing him problems, and I hope it will cause him problems serious enough to get him to reflect further when it comes to the democratic deficit.

I want to come back to the issue of the democratic deficit. The last few months have been very telling. What happened was very significant. We have a man who decided to seek power, to replace the former prime minister and to prevent the government from operating for weeks, if not for months. That is what happened.

If only he had respected democracy, if only he had respected Parliament, if only he had respected the elected representatives of the people, things would have been different. Unfortunately, what happened is that an over-ambitious man prevented the government from operating.

Therefore, we have to remember that it was not the opposition who prorogued the House in November 2003, but the government and the party in office. That means, of course, that a greater number of bills died on the Order Paper. And now, the government wants to reinstate them as if nothing happened.

Unfortunately, that is not what happened. If they want to pretend that they form a new government, that they stand for change, then they cannot just bring back the bills of the previous government and of the previous Prime Minister as if nothing happened.

Something very serious happened. For instance, if the government really wanted to eliminate the democratic deficit, it would have reinstated some of the private members' bills. Let me give the House a very good example of a bill which was ignored at the very last minute by the government, when the House was prorogued. The bill directly affects eastern Quebec. It deals with the issue of lighthouses. I said it affected eastern Quebec, but I could also mention the Maritimes and all of Canada.

I was just reading something that was published, on this matter, back in November, not long after the House was prorogued. At the time, the House was considering a bill requiring the government to maintain its properties, including lighthouses.

This affects all Quebeckers living along the St. Lawrence River, Quebec's maritime regions and the maritime provinces as a whole.

Right after the prorogation, I read a document from Radio-Canada Atlantique which clearly stated that, in Nova Scotia and elsewhere, up to 100 lighthouses that have been used until very recently to guide navigators could be lost because of the government's lack of commitment to meeting its obligations and maintaining the infrastructure.

The situation is the same in Quebec. We could talk about what is going on in Quebec and in British Columbia. This bill was introduced by a member following discussions in the Senate. The idea was to force the government to take its responsibilities and to maintain the infrastructure. This affected us directly. As I said earlier, this bill affects all of Quebec's maritime regions.

We could also talk about fisheries. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which was sitting, had decisions to take. The Coast Guard could be in trouble following all the cuts that were made. Fisheries and Oceans may very well cut 600 jobs in the next few months. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was sitting to consider all the issues concerning fisheries.

Unfortunately, and maybe taxpayers ignore this, as soon as the House is prorogued, committees stop sitting. Naturally, it takes some time after the House has resumed its business for the committees to start sitting again.

So, all this process that I would described as undemocratic, all this infighting within the Liberal Party went on and caused the prorogation of the House, which stopped sitting. In the meantime, all the issues before us were suspended until today.

Now, they blame us, saying that the opposition is undemocratic because it refuses to pass such a motion. That is unacceptable. I will never be able to accept that the opposition be blamed for doing its job. The governing party is to blame for everything that happened, on top of the House being prorogued.

There is also Bill C-49 concerning the revision of electoral boundaries. This is very important. In our region, we are faced with quite a problem. The member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis talked earlier about the size of her riding. We could mention the riding of Matapédia—Matane, which is just huge, but we could also mention the riding of Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.

Let us not forget that, in recent history, 10 years ago, the Gaspé lost one riding. Now, we could lose another one. The government is not taking into account the huge size of the areas, particularly in the Gaspé, where the new riding will include some five regional county municipalities and a very large number of municipalities.

The riding of Matapédia—Matane, which is just next to that riding, is about the same size. Had it not been for the mergers, there would be some 60 municipalities over a very large area. From west to east, the riding is about 350 kilometres long. Constituents have a very hard time reaching their MP in such ridings.

As regards the democratic deficit, the government had a great opportunity to correct the situation by making exceptions and creating in all the so-called remote regions ridings that make sense.

Moreover, we were totally opposed to Bill C-49 because it did not take into account the historical aspect of the presence of Quebec MP's in the House of Commons.

I should point out that the government is adding new ridings, including in Alberta and British Columbia, which means that Quebec's representation will be proportionally reduced. We Bloc Quebecois members had suggested that the number of federal seats allocated to Quebec be increased from 75 to 77, to maintain a fair and equitable proportion. This would probably have enabled us to have smaller ridings, particularly in my region, in which an MP would have been able to do a perfectly adequate job, and in which it would have been much easier for constituents to have access to their MP.

The notion of democratic deficit is critical. First of all—and luckily the situation has changed at the federal level, although more than 20 years after changes were made in Quebec—there is now an act dealing with the financing of political parties. This is the very foundation of a democratic system. That was a major problem in terms of the democratic deficit. In Quebec, we realized that almost 25 years ago.

The very basis of democracy is the financing of political parties by the citizens, the participation of the people in the life of political parties. Naturally, in the end, during an electoral campaign, the more people participate, the better it is for democracy.

Unfortunately, since the last election, we have realized that voter turnout at the federal level has been dropping constantly. That is a sure sign of a democratic deficit that must be rectified.

We will certainly not deal with that deficit by acting like the government has acted towards members of Parliament and all-party committees. Even within the government itself, the problem is serious. We have seen it in the past. We have seen that the whole machinery of government, all the mechanics of government, the cabinet and the executive itself were centralized and operating from the Prime Minister's office, and that all decisions were being made there.

If we want to do something about the democratic deficit, that is where we have to start. The system must be more open, people must be given access to information and must be allowed to participate in the work of all committees and in all decisions made in the House.

I think the other democratic deficit concerns the members' right to speak. Opposition members have one right, and that is the right to speak. It is crucial. We also have the right to stand for our fellow citizens and those who sent us here.

Government members are not allowed to criticize or to make proposals. They do not have any right in the public forum. They have to remain silent. Therefore, it is much more difficult for them to stand for their constituents.

The government wants to reinstate another bill. Let me digress for a moment. We have heard a lot about safety lately. The government wants to reinstate Bill C-17 on public safety. The Bloc Quebecois was against this bill, and we still are today.

But we should not forget that, while the House was prorogued, the Canadian and American governments exchanged letters on the infamous missile defence shield. Commitments were made while the House was not sitting.

Through the back door, the government is trying to come to an agreement with the American government on an eventual Canadian participation in the American missile defence shield. I think this is an extremely serious democratic deficit.

There should have been a debate in the House on the subject, since this is a major decision. It is a decision involving the commitment of funds which may, of course, not be allocated to service delivery, funds that will not be available to provide services to the public. And this puts democracy at risk. We should have had this major discussion here in the House. We should have had a very serious debate on the subject.

During the prorogation of the House, something else happened, which directly affects taxpayers, particularly Quebec taxpayers: the Canadian government's decision to take part in a study with the American army to widen the St. Lawrence Seaway. In this regard, it would have been essential to have a heated debate on the subject, because the widening of the seaway may cause major problems, such as environmental problems. Let us think of all the stirring of sediments at the bottom of the seaway. If you disturb something that has been covered by a good layer of sediments, you will find large quantities of contaminants that came from the Great Lakes. There have been problems in the past.

This could cause environmental problems, first of all. In fact, there are sediments on the bottom of the seaway now. If we start to interfere with that thick layer of sediment, below it we will find contaminants that come from the Great Lakes, and very great quantities of them. We have had problems in the past. If all that shit—please excuse the word—were stirred up, it would obviously cause major environmental problems.

The second element regarding the enlarging of the St. Lawrence Seaway is shoreline erosion. If the seaway is enlarged, larger quantities of Great Lakes water will flow out, and there is a risk of provoking erosion problems all along the banks of the St. Lawrence. The problem already exists: imagine how much greater the erosion could become.

The third very important point regarding enlarging the St. Lawrence Seaway is an economic one. Why do they want to enlarge the seaway when, simply by setting up an intermodal transportation system based on the ports that already exist, it would be possible to ship freight easily to Detroit or the states concerned in the United States, since they seem to want to do this solely for the Americans and southern Ontario.

Once again, we in the Bloc Quebecois are not, at this time, in favour of entering into a process with the American army to enlarge the seaway. And yet, there is no debate in the House and on the government side, they are telling us about the democratic deficit. I think it is essential to hold a debate on this subject.

We could also be talking about Bill C-17. We can add another element to the concept of the democratic deficit. The Prime Minister was recently heard on the CBC talking about the $46 or $47 billion they have taken from the employment insurance fund. Of course, it is a virtual fund, but if you take money out of the fund and spend it all, you have stolen it, quite literally. It is very clear today that it is a completely virtual fund. Citizens, seasonal workers in particular, are being denied the help they need to live in decent conditions.

It must always be kept in mind, when referring to the employment insurance fund, that today not even 40% of workers have access to it. In terms of democracy, notwithstanding all that has been said on the subject, all the studies proving that it is totally unjust, the government kept on. The present Prime Minister, when finance minister, was the main one responsible for what happened to the EI fund.

We could also talk in terms of democratic deficit of all the services to the populations in regions such as mine, because of the fact that the electoral districts are very large. Given their immense size, the populations we represent are deprived of services.

Over the years since 1993, the federal government has become almost totally absent from our regions, abandoning the airports, no longer investing in the infrastructures that belong to it, among them the wharves at seaports. It has pretty well been the same thing for the entire railway system. In the region I come from, Canadian National is virtually absent and private companies are operating the railways today.

It is a democratic deficit when the entire population of my area pays as much in taxes as anyone else in the country and ought therefore to be entitled to about the same services, or so I believe.

Getting back to the motion before us, I was just referring to the ports. There was a private members bill on this, and it was abandoned. We could talk about all the other bills that fell by the wayside because of prorogation. As a result, today we find ourselves faced with a motion that is asking the opposition to say “Everything is forgotten. We start again from scratch”.

That is not exactly what the motion is calling on us to do. In actual fact, it is asking us to accept having all the bills that were before the House come back in the form they were in before prorogation. We did not accept those bills. We did not have all the time or debating space to express our views. Today what they want is to simply cancel out everything that was done. This is totally unacceptable.

[Baie des Chaleurs, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the Gaspé peninsula, a group of businesspeople and the Mi'kmaq community have begun a process intended to gain international recognition for the Baie des Chaleurs.

It was at the world congress of the Most Beautiful Bays in the World Club last June in Tadoussac that this group— whose name, Allaoleg, means “going somewhere”—decided that the Baie des Chaleurs should apply to join.

Some 30 bays in the world, including Tadoussac Bay in Quebec, are members of this very select club supported by Unesco.

The economic spinoffs from such a project are very significant.

I remind the house that the Fisheries Act allows for an intervention in order to shed light on the Bennett project at Belledune, on the shores of the Baie des Chaleurs. This only makes sense, as does recognizing the Baie des Chaleurs as one of the most beautiful bays in the world.

[Fisheries, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked for my colleagues, including my colleague for St. John's West, to be able to ask the parliamentary secretary some questions.

I am shocked by what we just heard. This problem has existed since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949. My colleagues opposite are well aware of this, as is my colleague who chaired the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I want to call the parliamentary secretary to order. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans did not present the government with one report; it presented two.

A first report was presented on November 8, 2002, and a second one was presented more recently in March 2003. This latest report did, in fact, reiterate the standing committee's recommendations regarding the custodial management of the nose and tail of the GrandBanks and the Flemish Cap off the coast of Newfoundland.

The resource was abundant in 1949, when Newfoundland joined Confederation. Unfortunately for the people of Newfoundland, resource management and protection was handed over to an irresponsible government, the federal government.

This is still the case today. We are told that diplomacy will be employed and that efforts will be made to resolve the problem through NAFO, an organization that has never assumed its responsibilities and that has never operated as it should.

Everyone knows quite well that this approach will never result in a resolution. NAFO member states had one goal: to appropriate our resource, conserve it and use it for their own purposes. This has continued since 1949, and the federal government has never reacted once in a way that would have allowed conservation of our resource.

There is more. Perhaps my colleague from St. John's West did not mention it earlier. In 1992, there was a moratorium on cod. Consequently, in the early 1990s, everyone knew already that the resource was seriously threatened. The moratorium of the early 1990s was a disaster, as much for Newfoundland as for the Gaspé, one of many regions hard hit by this famous moratorium.

When we talk about the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap off the coast of Newfoundland, we are talking about overlapping resources in a basin that extends to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

If the resource off the coast of Newfoundland is depleted, there is no doubt the resource in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and around the other Atlantic provinces will be seriously affected. In my opinion, this is the worst environmental disaster of the past century in Canada and Quebec.

A very plentiful resource has been depleted because of the irresponsible actions, and lack of vision, of a government. This government simply failed to take its responsibilities. That is what it was asked to do.

As the hon. member for St. John's West indicated earlier, the original three mile limit was extended to 12 miles and then to 200 miles, while still not protecting our resource.

Today, as the parliamentary secretary reminded us, we have, of course, the United Nations Fisheries Agreement, which the 15 members countries of the European Economic community have agreed to sign, finally giving it effect. That has taken a good many years.

The agreement being in effect is still no guarantee—and I call the attention of the hon. parliamentary secretary to this point—that his government will take its responsibilities. Here is the perfect case in point.

Another 600 or so jobs are slated to be cut at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Naturally, one could tell me that is only a rumour, but where there is smoke, as they say.

To protect our resource, the department should not be facing these kinds of cut. On the contrary, it should be provided with the extra resources needed to conduct efficient monitoring so that we could see what is going on inside the 200 mile limit as well as outside. The United Nations Fisheries Agreement provides for the protection of what is called straddling stocks both inside and outside this 200 mile limit.

The government's response is that we cannot afford to protect the resource, but air resources could be increased. The minister said, “We may increase air surveillance”.

Will the Coast Guard have the means to respond when the time comes? The answer is no because the Coast Guard has been completely underfunded since 1993. Its equipment is starting to become obsolete. Money was invested in the Coast Guard after September 11, but only for security, not to protect the resource.

We experienced a moratorium in 1993 and we just went through another one with the cod fishery. They had 10 years to try to solve the problem and now we are no further ahead than we were 10 years ago.

I am supposed to believe that the federal government is going to assume its responsibilities and protect the resource. The federal government is finally going to make good on what it owes the people of the Maritimes and eastern Quebec. Indeed, that is its responsibility and it is precisely because of its lack of responsibility that people have been so hard hit in Newfoundland, the Gaspé Peninsula and the Maritimes.

They can try to sugar-coat things or give nice speeches, like the one the parliamentary secretary just delivered, but I do not, nor will I ever, believe a word of what they are saying.

As my colleague said, this affects all Canadians. In fact, the fisheries are managed just as badly on the west coast as on the east coast. There are just as many problems on the west coast as on the east coast when it comes to managing the fisheries.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is about the worst system there could be for managing and protecting the resource. From one ocean to another, the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans keep hearing that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not listen to the fishers, the plant workers, or the people who process the resource. The government does not want input because it wants to manage the resource its own way and it is managing it very badly.

I want to reiterate my support for the hon. member for St. John's-West and his championing of this issue. As a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I remain convinced that the recommendations contained in both reports, in 1982 and 2003, were correct and that they should have been implemented by the government, contrary to its reaction, especially when the first report was issued. The government automatically rejected that report and did not even take the time to read it. Therefore we were unable to take action on the international stage because, in a way, we shot ourselves in the foot.

In the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans we were extremely disappointed, and with good reason. All members of this committee reiterated the report's recommendations in 2003. These are the recommendations we want to see implemented and put into practice.

The Speech from the Throne talks about the democratic deficit in the context of the House of Commons. I think the government had two fine opportunities to partially rectify the democratic deficit by accepting the unanimous recommendations of all members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. And if it had done so, at least part of the solution could have been put into effect and the resource might be better managed today.

Two years later, we see that this government has done absolutely nothing. I do not believe that in two more years, if the same government is still in power, something will be done.

I reiterate my support for the hon. member for St. John's West, and salute him as well.

[Business of the House, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I believe she explained quite well the underlying elements of the throne speech. I wish she would speak again on this point, because she may not have had enough time to describe the consequences, for the citizens of this country, of this government's direction with respect to American policies and our participation in the missile defence plan. We do not know the costs involved, but we know full well that huge investments will be required, that it will cost a fortune.

The Speech from the Throne refers to substantial reinvestments in defence and security. All those plans are clearly outlined in the throne speech. Reference is also made to more dredging in the St. Lawrence Seaway, which, for the Americans, is not only a question of transport but also a question of security.

As far as costs are concerned, what is proposed in the throne speech is absolutely gigantic, and the amounts will be spent at the expense of health, education or transfers to provinces, in fact, at the expense of all services.

I hope my colleague will expand on how the public will be affected by the directions outlined in the throne speech. I would like to quote a short excerpt from that speech to show to what extent the federal government has withdrawn from services, particularly in the regions.

At page 17, the Speech from the Throne states:

A Canada where the benefits of the 21st century economy are being reaped fromcoast to coast to coast... But government has an essential enabling role.

Do you know what that essential enabling role is? It is not to invest in the regions; it is a role of moderator. We will only be moderators. We will go and tell people, “Do the development yourselves”. It is written:

This will be achieved primarily through the efforts of Canadians themselves.

Therefore, the federal government continues to withdraw from all services and from the regions. I would like to hear my hon. colleague on that.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, November 6th, 2003]

My colleague is right, a matriarchy. So aboriginal women had a place. Then a system was set up that took everything away from these nations. They were told their way of living was unacceptable.

They were told, “We the British, the conquerors, cannot accept the way you are living. So we must change it”.

Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois will be opposing the bill before us. Once again, it is paternalistic, treats the first nations like children and is unacceptable.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, November 6th, 2003]

As my colleague for Champlain says, they develop a real complex. Eventually, after 200 years, people start to wonder if they really are incapable. In the end they are diminished. When the English arrived here after the Conquest, the aboriginal nations had a good life. They developed as they should, fed and cared for their children as they should, treated their women in accordance with their customs. Women received the treatment they expected in their culture; they were not mistreated.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, November 6th, 2003]

Rhodesians, you are right. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is quite right, the government has a Rhodesian mentality when it comes to Canada's first nations. The federal government must grant them real recognition. Real recognition is fundamental; they have the right to be different and to exist.

My colleague is talking about all first nations, since each nation is distinct and these differences must be respected, just as they alldeserve to be respected in a sound country.

We could also talk about the way aboriginal women are treated. I know my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, the critic for the status of women, is particularly concerned about this problem. Let us look at how aboriginal women and children are treated. As my colleague from Drummond has said, if people live within a system where they have been told for 200 years that they are incapable of doing things properly, of developing their potential, then eventually they develop—