Jean-Yves Roy

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

Madam Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member who just spoke that I appreciated very much his remarks. We could tell that he was speaking from his heart and that he was deeply affected. I commend him for taking this position in the House.

Before addressing Bill C-19, I wish to formally thank in this House Chief John Martin of Gesgapegiag, as well as all the aboriginal nations of the Gaspé, Chaleur Bay and New Brunswick, for their support in a fight for the environment that is vital to our region, the fight against an incinerator in Belledune.

I had the opportunity to meet Chief John Martin on a few occasions. He is a man for whom I have a great appreciation. My wish is that this government finally recognize that the aboriginal nations exist, and not only virtually. I hope it will recognize that they exist in reality, that they have rights and these rights must be respected.

As my hon. colleague mentioned, what we see today with this government is a paternalistic tendency and a paternalistic system being maintained. In that system, there is no room for trust or for the self-determination of aboriginal people.

Where does this attitude come from? Where does this system come from? From the conquest in 1760. This system was imposed on aboriginal nations over the years. First, by the British government in 1760, and then by the federal government, starting in 1867. It has imposed a comprehensive paternalistic system on aboriginal nations.

At the time of the conquest and even before, the British wanted to wipe the aboriginal nations off the face of the earth. They tried to do the same thing with the Acadians, in New Brunswick. If we, Quebeckers, who were known as French Canadians from Quebec at the time, had not been as many as we were, they would probably have tried the same thing with us. Unfortunately for them, there were problems in their 13 colonies, and they were not able to try to do to us what they tried to do to the aboriginal nations.

What we are asking for the aboriginal nations is very simple: the right to govern themselves, to decide their future for themselves, to decide what kind of services they will provide for themselves and so on, as well as, and this is very important, the right to live, in dignity, in accordance with their customs and their needs.

It seems that, in this country, the right to be different does not exist. Look at Canada's fine principles, one by one, from the moment they were implemented. Among them is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Considering what is happening with first nations, this principle does not apply. It remains simply a principle. There is nothing in practice to suggest that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is truly being complied with, that Canadian legislation that would allow the first nations to lead a better life is truly being implemented.

In fact, the opposite is true. Simply look at the first nations and all the problems they have. Earlier we were talking about the suicide rate among young aboriginals. Simply look at the dropout rate and the opportunities young aboriginals have to lead a normal, decent life.

I do not think Canada will provide them, at this time, with a system that will help them reach the objectives that would allow their people to lead a decent life. On the contrary, we are perpetuating a paternalistic tradition, a tradition of oppression, and a tradition of wiping out the first nations.

Simply look at what happened recently in the House, when we were talking about recognizing Quebec as a nation, and Quebeckers as a people. Look at the attitude of the government and the MPs opposite. Look at the attitude of the 35 MPs from Quebec, who said no to the Quebec nation and to the existence of a Quebec people.

Is this government going to make us believe that it intends to respect the first nations? Is this government going to make us believe that it will provide services to the first nations? Is this government going to tell us that we are going to improve their lot in life?

The conquest was 230 years ago. Obviously, since 1867, less time has passed. Since 1867, the aboriginals have been waiting to develop. Since 1867, they have been waiting for the right to live. Since 1867, aboriginal youth have been waiting for the right to exist, to live the way they want, to get an education, to integrate into their own society and maintain their language and culture.

One of the first things the federal government did was crush the Métis in western Canada. The first Prime Minister of Canada, John A. Macdonald, sent in the army to crush them and tell them that they did not have the right to exist. This mentality still exists today. Today, we no longer send in the army to crush the first nations, but we continue to send public servants who want to control them, manage them, tell them what to do and, ultimately, take away all their rights.

When they do obtain a right, it is intangible. Once again, that right is controlled. They are told, “You are incapable of managing your own affairs, of managing or providing services, so we, the white men from the federal government, will tell you what to do and we will control you and manage your affairs and tell you how you must live”.

[The Environment, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in its lobbying to promote this project, the company invited local doctors in the affected region to a meeting to show them the project was completely harmless.

However, not only did the doctors attending the meeting not feel reassured, they also announced that they were staking their credibility as men and women of science to prevent the project from going forward.

I repeat my question. Consequently, can the minister state, beyond all doubt, that destruction of the marine wildlife could not occur in Belledune?

[The Environment, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday for the first time in relation to section 35 of the Fisheries Act, the minister stated, “We use this section when a project request is submitted and there is evidence that destruction could occur”.

The minister claims that the Belledune project poses no danger to marine wildlife, since he consulted the studies provided by the company.

Consequently, can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans state, beyond all doubt, that destruction of the marine wildlife could not occur as a result of Bennett Environmental's project?

[The Environment, November 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when questioned about Belledune, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans twists our words by saying that we are asking him to intervene in provincial jurisdictions, which is completely untrue and he knows it.

I will read the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, section 35 of the act that he is in charge of administering:

No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refuses to use this section in Belledune, can he tell us when he does use it?

[Fisheries, October 30th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, before I start I would like to make a small correction because there is a mistake in the French version of the motion. It should not say “gestion de garde” because there is no such thing; it should read instead “gestion axée sur la conservation”. It is important to mention that. It is indeed “gestion axée sur la conservation” and not “gestion de garde”.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from St. John's West for bringing this motion to the House. It is truly an important motion.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary who, in a way, did answer him. I believe he was trying to justify the government's action. However, the attitude of the government ever since Newfoundland joined the Canadian federation has been absolutely unacceptable and unjustifiable.

It is unjustifiable because it allowed a resource to be destroyed. It is unjustifiable because it allowed an entire industry to be destroyed, an industry that was the main industry in Atlantic Canada, that was the main industry in Newfoundland and the Gaspé, where I come from. It was also the main industry in other Atlantic provinces. Over the years, the government allowed this resource to be destroyed because it did not take the necessary steps to protect it, as other countries did.

My colleague mentioned that point earlier. He mentioned Iceland, a tiny country of some 284,000 inhabitants. This year, its catch of cod will exceed 200,000 tonnes. This tiny country took matters into its own hands. On several occasions it extended its territorial waters. On three occasions, this tiny country vigorously defended its resource.

Here is a country with 284,000 inhabitants who stands up to the United Kingdom and its armada, and successfully stands up for justice at the international level to protect its resource. This is a very important example.

What has happened here in Canada? I heard the parliamentary secretary say, “Yes, but we should not irritate countries we are working with .We must respect international law”. Indeed, I agree. I quite agree that we have to respect international law. But I also agree that the government should try harder. I also agree that the government did not take the necessary steps in the past.

That is where the problem lies. The government says that we must follow international laws, and that is just fine. However, let us talk about the first time that we had a moratorium, which caused a terrible disaster in the Maritimes.

Indeed, for the last two years and even before that, that is since 1993, a lot of people have been forced into unemployment. The government must have invested some $2 billion to support the economies of these provinces, and it still has not learned its lesson. It was in 1993. Ten years later, we are still discussing the same situation, and a new moratorium was imposed last spring.

What is happening? How can a government be so incompetent and inept at managing a resource?

On top of that, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans produced two reports over the last two years. The first one, issued in June 2002, was entitled “Impacts and Solutions, Conservation on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap”.

The minister's response was almost instantaneous. He dismissed out of hand all the recommendations contained in the report without having even read it or consulted it. What did the committee do? I would remind members that it was a unanimous report from all parties, from coast to coast, and even from a member of the Bloc Quebecois, namely myself, since I sit on that committee.

That shows how important an issue this is. It can be just as important for Newfoundland as it can be for British Columbia or Quebec. If Quebec were independent, I am sure that it would not have managed the resource in this fashion. It is very important, and it has to be said.

At every meeting of provincial fisheries ministers, they discuss this issue. It is the same thing for the Newfoundland fisheries minister. So they come back to this issue and ask the federal government to take its responsibilities and to manage the resource properly.

I was saying there was a first report that was practically dismissed out of hand. Seeing that, the committee produced another report in March 2003. Again we asked the government, unanimously, to take the necessary measures to implement the custodial management of fisheries resources on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. We did so because it is our resource.

Our resources are being pillaged and plundered on a daily basis, and by a great number of countries. We may pretend that progress in being made, that improvements are being made, but I can tell the House that by the time decisions are made to protect our resources, there will not be much left. It has happened before.

To protect our resources, all the federal government did here, at home, was to impose a moratorium. Will we have to wait until every country in the world has imposed a moratorium on our resources and there is nothing left inside or outside the 200 mile limit? That is what the government is waiting for, since it has not taken any concrete measure.

In the last two years, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has proposed solutions to this problem. It was the duty of the government to consider them carefully, to determine if they could be implemented and, through the foreign affairs department, to start negotiating some kind of solid agreement to protect the resources on theNose and Tail of the Grand Banks and of the Flemish Cap.

As a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I can assure my hon. colleague that we will strongly support and endorse this motion as we have done in the past two years.

[Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak on the motion presented by my colleague from Trois-Rivières who I cannot name but whose first name is composed of at least half of mine.

This morning's debate opposes two visions of two different countries, two different visions of the way we should be governed and of the way a people is entitled to govern itself.

Looking at what has happened recently, we can find a lot of examples of attempts by the federal government to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. We see that a process developed many years ago has a very definite objective. The objective is to ensure that there is only one government in the whole country and that the provincial governments become, in a sense, branches of the central government.

What we see is a determination to centralize at all cost, without taking the aspirations of all Canadians, Quebeckers and others, into account.

Of course, the aspirations of the citizens of Quebec are different from those of citizens in the other provinces in that, what we want, particularly the majority of francophones, is to have our own country. We want to ensure that Quebec can develop with its own administrative approach, its own methods and its own taxes. We want to ensure that this country will become a country in our own image where it will be possible to offer the services we wish to provide to our fellow citizens.

At present, as I said, what we see is the federal government's desire for wall-to-wall centralization. This desire for centralization is steady and continuing. Why does this government want to centralize all the powers that the provinces, including Quebec, now hold—at all costs? In fact, what is the motive or reason behind this desire for centralization?

When we examine that question seriously, we realize that there really is no reason, because a country can also be governed through decentralization, leaving the provinces to manage that which belongs to them under the Constitution of 1867 and that of 1982, even though we as Quebeckers, do not recognize that document?

In the end, it is an unhealthy desire on the part of the federal government, especially the Liberal Party that has been in power since 1993. It is an unhealthy desire to centralize everything in Ottawa, ensuring that we have a wall-to-wall country, that is, with very nearly all the same programs from coast to coast, without taking any differences into account, without taking the Quebec difference into account, and without taking into account the fact that Quebeckers want a very different kind of government, as we know.

One could list many sectors in which the federal government has intervened in recent years. My colleague cited a good number of them in a letter he recently had published in Le Devoir . Some examples are the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, the Young Offenders Act, or policies covering the voluntary sector. Others are health and education. There are more examples involving every area under provincial jurisdiction.

Now, there is an announcement that the federal government intends to invest directly in municipalities, that is, in an area that does not belong to it. That is clearly defined in the Constitution of 1867. It is an area of exclusively provincial jurisdiction, where the federal government has no reason to intrude.

Why is the federal government acting this way? As I was saying, it wants to govern the country the same way from coast to coast, where everybody is equal and where no differences can exist.

I would like to quote a minister who is here in the House and who is very well known for some of the infamous comments he has made. He said one day that for Quebeckers to be brought back into the fold, they had to get hurt. That comment was made and repeated publicly by someone who is here in this House.

What we do realize is that the federal government applies exactly the same method for all the provinces across Canada. With the fiscal imbalance, the goal is to starve the provinces, particularly in the areas of health care and education, which are under their jurisdiction. By starving them, it makes them unable to provide the level of services that they could and should provide. Then the federal government barges in and says, “Yes, we will help you, but under certain conditions”.

That is exactly what is happening with the social union agreement. The provinces, not having the funds they need to provide services, are turning to the federal government for help.

This is absolutely unnecessary. If the fiscal imbalance were eliminated, the provinces would collect the taxes they need to provide services in health care and education and would therefore be able to provide these services without any help from the federal government. It is absolutely unnecessary for the federal government to get involved in areas under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces are perfectly able to provide these services, and perhaps even better than the federal government, as long as they have enough money to do so.

I would also like to add that the federal government tries to intervene in provincial jurisdiction, but for the most part, when it comes to its own affairs, things are a mess. I am the critic for fisheries and oceans, which is entirely a federal responsibility.

Look at what has happened since 1949, when Newfoundland entered Confederation. It started off with an abundant resource and ended up with a moratorium, specifically on cod and ground fish. Yet other countries such as Iceland and Norway have managed to protect this resource through strict management. Note that this is a major industry for Iceland. Those countries have found a way to protect their resource so that their population can continue to earn a living from this industry. In Canada, this is a federal responsibility and the management of it has been a disaster.

As a province, as Quebeckers, are we to trust the federal government to manage our health care system? Never. When we look at what has happened in federal jurisdictions and what the federal government has managed, it is clear that their success rate is extremely low.

There is currently another big case in my region: the infamous Bennett Environmental incinerator in Belledune. The federal government has the power to intervene, but it does nothing, despite the fact that close to 30,000 people have signed a petition calling on it to take action and the fact that there is a coalition. These people are asking the federal government to intervene in this case because protecting this resource is part of its responsibility.

The federal government is dragging its heels and so far has refused to intervene. We hope the federal government will take its responsibilities pursuant to existing legislation.

I could go on at length. Take air transport for example, which is the epitome of federal responsibility. What has happened in our regions is a catastrophe because we practically have no service any more, yet it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that the public receives efficient services.

I personally, and all my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, recognize Quebec as a nation and Quebeckers as a people. We hope to achieve full and complete sovereignty in order to have services that bring us together and that are a true reflection of our needs.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill S-7.

I am shocked and astounded by what I just heard. It was like hearing a wish list. Indeed, after some research on the issue, one realizes that it was in 1970 that the federal government decided to abandon the existing lighthouses and replace them with automated ones. This program exists since 1970.

I only wanted to point out that, since 1970, many studies have been carried out and numerous recommendations made. A large number of people have asked the federal government to at least take proper care of its lighthouses.

There is a very good example in my riding, namely the Madeleine-Centre lighthouse. We could say that it is a heritage lighthouse. However, it does not meet the extremely strict criteria established by the board.

My difficulty with Bill S-7 is that it wants these lighthouses to be dealt with by a board that has no money to look after these structures but sets standards so strict that it will deal with the fewest structures possible. Therefore, the lighthouses, not being maintained, continue to deteriorate.

Many people, especially those in Quebec and Canada who care about our heritage, have harshly criticized the government for its attitude, which is why Bill S-7 was introduced. Had the government done its job, we would not need this legislation. After all, we already have all the tools; the only problem is that the federal government has totally abandoned these structures, in the hope that they could be demolished so that it would no longer have to take care of them and spend money on them.

I simply want to quote this from the Auditor General's report of 1983, which was published 13 years after the introduction of the lighthouse replacement program:

Despite the fact that the unmanning program has been under way for 13 years, we had difficulty obtaining satisfactory cost information.

Thus, 13 years after the start of the program, there were still no real data on what was done by the government. I continue:

—we had difficulty obtaining satisfactory cost information. A breakdown of direct and indirect costs for manned versus unmanned lighthouses is not available.

This means that the program was put in place at the time without any idea of how much it would could cost or of what was going to happen to the abandoned lighthouses and to those that were no longer manned. I continue:

Nevertheless, the Coast Guard has indicated that an estimate of annual cost savings of $50,000 per station would be reasonable.

That is an estimate that was never verified, and the Auditor General confirmed this back in 1983:

Thus, unmanning lightstations would result in annual savings of from $6 million (based on the 118 lighthouses identified in the survey) to $12 million (if all 234 manned locations were included).

This means that, for the unmanned lighthouses, it is $6 million and, for the manned lighthouses, the amount is $12 million.

Offsetting these annual reductions in costs is a one-time cost for new monitoring equipment, which the Coast Guard estimates would range from $8 million to $15 million.

So we put in place this program, we abandoned the infrastructures that were there. Instead of using the infrastructures we had, we replaced the historic infrastructures by aluminum structures. In the end, we realized that it was as costly and that there were no savings. This finding dates back to 1983. Now it is 2003 and it seems, according to the information we have, that we will not have the answer before December 2003.

In other words, we will not know what went on from 1970 to 2003 with respect to lighthouses. We are talking about a 33 year period during which the government had no idea what was happening with the lighthouses when it abandoned them and created an unmanning program.

We were to have the answer by December 2003 and find out whether there really were any savings. It is 30 years later. People are asking questions and Bill S-7, the purpose of which is to protect heritage lighthouses, was introduced.

What is a heritage lighthouse? There is absolutely nothing in the bill that describes the criteria for determining that.

On the contrary, it is left entirely to the discretion of the minister and the government to determine which are heritage lighthouses and therefore set out the criteria and, knowing this government, eliminate as many as possible. The stricter the criteria, the fewer heritage lighthouses there are and the less money will have to be invested.

Look at how this government has acted with the Coast Guard, among others, for a number of years now. Since 1983, we know full well that the Coast Guard has been utterly underfunded. After the events of September 11, we woke up and realized that we had a bare bones Coast Guard. It is the Coast Guard that is currently responsible for the lighthouses. It is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that is currently responsible for the lighthouses. Nothing is being invested in the infrastructure, which was completely abandoned.

I would go further. In the bill before us, the normal procedure, when the federal government wants to sell property, is first to offer it to the provinces, to repair the infrastructure and maintain it properly. If the province does not want to acquire the infrastructure, then the federal government can offer it either to the municipality or an independent corporation.

We do not need a bill for this. We do not need Bill C-7 for this. This already exists in procedure. It is already there.

The problem is that the government never invests money. It does not invest the necessary money or offer anything to the communities that want to operate or acquire these lighthouses to maintain them for the benefit of the public.

My main concern about this bill is that it looks as though the minister is being given full discretion. He or she can do pretty much whatever he or she wants and the public has no input because, in the end, despite all the consultation, the criteria have to be met.

If the minister sets the criteria, even if there is a public consultation process, we will have to rely on the heritage board criteria. It is these criteria that have to be changed so as to include a greater number of lighthouses, so that the government will have to invest the necessary funds before it transfers them, if it wishes to do so.

The same principle applies to train stations, airports and ports that the government has transferred in the past. It is the same process. With regard to ports, the federal government made the commitment to repair the facilities before transferring them to the community.

The same thing should be done with lighthouses. They should be repaired and maintained. If the government wants to transfer them, then the community can take over.

I would also add that there are some questions with regard to ports, because it is the same process. Right now, certain communities that have taken over these infrastructures are in trouble because they are unable to absorb the costs of maintaining a port or an airport.

We have a good example of that in our regions. I am referring to the Gaspé airport and to the Mont-Joli airport. We realize today that the communities are unable to assume this responsibility because they do not have the necessary funds.

The same thing should not happen with lighthouses. The criteria should be not be so strict, so as to force the government to maintain these facilities.

[The Environment, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am listening to a flock of seagulls over Belledune.

People affected by the Bennett project in Belledune are in Ottawa today to share their concerns with the government. The Minister of the Environment incorrectly claims that we are asking him to intervene in an issue that is outside his jurisdiction.

I am asking this government to stop acting the fool and tell us why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not want to use section 35 of the Fisheries Act, which gives him the authority to intervene in order to protect resources in Chaleur Bay.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

My colleague is right about the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. I may agree with him, but I will let the Canadian people be the judge of that.

It is however a very serious prank on democracy. When the government started to change the rules of democracy for political reasons, I thought that was very serious indeed.

I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague from St. John's West and I do hope for him, as he mentioned to the person who was previously in the chair, that there is a blue haze hanging over St. John's tonight.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for St. John's West for his question, which I just love.

Indeed, I feel it is quite appropriate for a number of reasons, but it will also have a significant impact on democracy.