Jean-Yves Roy

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

What we want is action.

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing Motion No. 11 for Bill C-24. This motion calls for a review of the act after the next general election. That is the purpose of today's discussion. However, we may need to broaden the scope of the debate.

Before going any further, I would like to point out that my colleagues' main argument was that we are asking taxpayers to fund, in part, political parties' operations under the new bill. He said that we would be adding an additional burden to taxpayers, who are already overtaxed. I completely agree with him; people are much too heavily taxed and yes, the government could make efforts to reduce taxes, which would be even better.

However, the argument put forward by my colleague is a false one. In fact, if a corporation or a company contributes $100,000 to a political party, for example, if a big bank contributes $100,000 to the Liberal Party fund—as has occurred in the past and as is still the case today—this bank is not creating this money out of nothing—it will simply take this $100,000 and include it in its public relations expenses or other expenses. This way, it pays less tax on its profits.

Moreover, the company will ask users to foot the bill because companies make money by selling services or products. So, if the $100,000 is part of this company's overhead costs, it is obvious that the company will increase its prices accordingly. Companies do not create money out of nothing; they provide services. That is how it works. It seems to me that this argument is a somewhat spurious one.

As for the other major element of Bill C-24, I would like to draw a comparison with Quebec. Quebec has had legislation on political party financing for quite a while. We should look at how it has worked, and see what good it has done Quebec in terms of cleaning up politics. If we compare this system to the Canadian system, it is clear that there is a very serious problem with party financing in the latter. One need only look at the current leadership race.

Since we have a bill before us, we can ask ourselves, for instance, which candidate will win the leadership race. The answer is simple: the one who raised the most money. But at present, this is hardly clean money; it is money raised in secret. There is therefore a need to make these activities transparent.

We could look at the United States and how the presidency campaigns are run in that country; we would see all the problems they have had in the past.

At present, if we look at the situation in Canada, I mentioned the leadership race, but we could talk about the overall operation of political parties. To say that political parties are not influenced by the large companies or the individuals who contribute the most to their election fund would be a lie. To say that a member would not be influenced by the fact that a company contributed $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 to his or her election campaign, would be to lie to the public.

Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-24. We had hoped that the measures in this bill would follow Quebec's lead, so as to make it more acceptable to the general public and ensure that our democracy can truly express its will. From the beginning, Quebec's political party financing legislation was recognized throughout North America, Europe and the world as being very forward-looking legislation that cleaned up politics. It is a model for all liberal democracies in North America and Europe. It is a model, but we think too that it needs to be perfected, amended and regularly reviewed, and Motion No. 11 would ensure that Canada's political party financing legislation is subject to regular review.

We want this legislation to be improved. We do not want business to have the right to make contributions. The only way to renew the public's interest in democracy is to allow it to participate and to see that it, not just business, can have a real influence on political parties.

Over the years, this aspect of our democracies got off track. From the moment that businesses had access to political party financing—perhaps right from the start, but it was less obvious before; this has become more evident over the years—they have become increasingly important to political parties and have had more and more influence on our democracy, which has meant that the influence of individuals has decreased.

This must be rectified immediately, since we realize that the public is becoming disillusioned with politics. It thinks that politics are not credible, because it is influenced by interest groups—unions were mentioned—or business.

Another change we should maybe have considered during the examination of this bill on political party financing—and I mentioned this earlier—is the combined influence of interest groups. These days, in our society, it is no longer citizens who dominate. There are even corporations, understandably, that have formed big groups, like all of the chambers of commerce and so on. It is all of these interest groups that constantly influence members to vote one way or another.

This is something that has developed in our democracy over the last 30 years and we have seen it happen. Every citizen with a cause to defend can, if they want, create a lobby group. The more powerful that group is, the greater that person's chances of being heard by governments. Unfortunately, under current legislation, such as the Canada Elections Act and the political party financing legislation, we have also allowed these interest groups to contribute to political parties. That has given them additional influence.

I think this should be prohibited. I think that only citizens should have the right to contribute to political parties, to invest in their democracy and, in this way, ensure its health, on the condition that, as others have mentioned, there be annual reporting and that we know who contributed to the funding of each political party, based on the allowable limit.

In Quebec, if my memory serves well—I would have to check—I think that any contributions over $100 must be declared. There must be a list of people who have contributed to a party. I think the same is true federally, and this is a good idea.

Earlier, there was talk of increasing the burden on taxpayers. I would like to come back to this idea. In fact, I think that it is up to each and every individual to fund political parties, but it is also up to the government to make efforts so that political parties can be viable and, from an economic standpoint, continue to grow and prosper so as to develop our democracy and allow people to participate in it.

[First Nations Governance Act, June 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who did outstanding work in the committee, as well as all the hon. members on the opposition benches who have kept up this fight I believe is essential.

And why do I think this fight is essential? Because it is a fight for democracy itself. It is the struggle of nations who want to manage their own affairs, who want to steer their own course to the future. The characteristic of a nation is that it has the power to govern itself, to make its own rules, to pass its own legislation and to make decisions on behalf of its citizens.

Perhaps that goes back to the beginning of the whole story. What this bill does not properly recognize is the right of first nations to govern themselves and to say, “The needs of our citizens and our needs are thus and so. This is the way we wish to meet the needs of our citizens”.

I think this proves how much paternalism—what I would call shameless paternalism—there is and probably has been since the history of this country began. We have to look back to see how badly the first nations have been mistreated over the years, since the Conquest in 1760. If we look at the past, at the beginning of the country's history, there was a fundamental mistake made. We talk about the Indian Act, but there are no Indians here; they are aboriginal people. It is a historical error to talk about Indians.

It began with a historical error and so it has continued. After the Conquest, reserves were created. But has anyone looked at the meaning of the word reserve? Has anyone looked in a dictionary to see what reserve means? We can look it up in the Canadian Oxford.

A reserve is a thing put aside for future use, an extra stock or amount that one might need later. It is a sad thing to see what this means in terms of the contempt of using such a restrictive word as reserve to name the aboriginal people's lands.

Of course, if you look further in the dictionary, you will see something else. I was intrigued by that word because I had discussions with aboriginal leaders. For those who do not know, there are two reserves in my riding. I should not use that word. There are two first nations, or rather one nation but two aboriginal territories in the riding of Matapédia—Matane. When I hear the word reserve, I find it difficult to accept. I thought that there must have been another meaning, that this word was used but was given a different meaning. But the meaning is indeed the one that can be found in the dictionary.

If one reads further in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, one will see that it says, “In Canada, an area of land set aside for the use of a specific group of Aboriginal people”. That is how the word reserve is defined in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Aboriginal people were put on lands set aside for them, and maybe we will deal with them at some point in the future.

That is what it means to a certain extent. It is totally degrading for first nations, for those people who were here before the white man, before the Europeans, and particularly before the Conquest.

As I was saying, what defines a nation is its power to determine the needs of its people and the way in which it meets those needs. What makes a people great is its ability to accept differences, to live with others. This is not exactly what this government is showing us.

The bill was referred to and discussed in committee. As my colleague mentioned earlier, this was done in a way that is totally unacceptable. It was done in a way that showed nothing by contempt for first nations, for those who appeared before the committee, for the elected representatives who are here, including the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

He wanted the first nations to finally obtain recognition in this country, to finally have the freedom to decide for themselves and to meet the needs of their peoples.

When we visit aboriginal reserves and we talk to aboriginals and chiefs, we see the poverty in which people on some reserves are living. This poverty was created because they did not have the power to decide their own future and to resolve their own problems, and because a one-size-fits-all solution is being imposed on them, through this bill, from one coast to another, from the Atlantic to the Pacific or vice-versa. A one-size-fits-all solution is being imposed on them.

Why should aboriginals in the riding of Matapédia—Matane have to live with the same solution as those in British Columbia? They are different nations. These people do not necessarily have the same needs. They do not live in the same climate. They live in very different environments. So, why do we want to impose similar solutions on them? That is what this bill seeks to do, and this is unacceptable.

I am a Quebecker and, as you know, I am a sovereignist. I want and I defend the right of Quebec to become a true nation, a true people and a true country, simply because we want our fellow citizens to have access to the services we want them to have, the way we want, so that our children can grow up in a healthy environment that belongs to them.

So, why is this government denying the first nations this right? This is a historical refusal. We can go back to 1867. I could even go back further than that. In some cases, governments and governors prior to Canadian Confederation tried to eliminate the first nations. They tried to assimilate them, as attempts have been made to assimilate us, Quebeckers and francophones. This is something we have never accepted. And we will never allow the first nations to be treated this way, no more than we can accept having been treated this way or being treated this way.

After several meetings with the aboriginal leader, John Martin, I understood all the difficulties, such as in the Matapédia—Matane riding, he had experienced and all the scorn shown by Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

When the chief of an aboriginal people comes to Ottawa for meetings with public servants, he is scorned and considered a nobody. He has come here just to report problems in education and ask for the cheque he has been promised for months. Because he did not get the money, he cannot hire teachers or special counsellors for children with problems on his reserve. This is unacceptable.

This government is responsible for most of the problems of the aboriginals. Because of this government, aboriginal peoples have big problems and live in poverty.

My colleague was talking about the management of Indian reserves, of Indian bands, of first nations. I should use the word nation because I do not like words like reserves or bands. I will use the words first nations, because they are really nations.

In education, they should have the authority and money needed to provide real education services to their children. I would like to know what their dropout rate is. How many young aboriginals cannot make it through high school because the education they get is not adequate?

Once again, I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and all those who took part in committee proceedings, opposition members and more particularly witnesses from the first nations. I hope that, for a change, the government will respect the vision of a nation that is different from theirs.

[Public Service Modernization Act, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by congratulating my colleague from Mercier for giving such an excellent speech. She was well placed to do so, given her abilities and her background.

My questions relating to the bill are, like hers, concerned with the merit principle and the issue of whistle-blowing. The matter of merit struck me—I realize we need to be brief and I shall try to do this quickly—as extremely dangerous, and I see a link with the whistle-blowing aspect. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me and whether my interpretation is correct.

Let us imagine a person who reports a behaviour, an attitude or an action in his or her sector of the public service. If he or she aspires to a higher position at some later date, I think there will be problems. This is where merit enters in. How is the concept of merit determined? How will it be applied?

It must be kept in mind that the federal public service was created during the second world war and still has a near-military management mentality. This makes things extremely difficult. My riding contains a very large Government of Canada office. I regularly receive complaints from public servants who work there, because of the management system, and in particular the abuse of part-time workers. They get called in for four hours and then sent home, or called in on a weekend and then sent home. This makes things very difficult, particularly for people with families.

When there is talk of modernizing the public service, would it not have been necessary to include measures relating to the family?

[Committees of the House, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is a loaded question, I believe. You will understand that I have no intention of saying that the government is protecting our resource well, when I have been saying the opposite for the past 20 minutes, and am firmly convinced of it.

We need only look at what went on this spring with the fisheries, with the cod fisheries. Let us look at what is happening elsewhere in the world, in order to see how our successive governments, and the federal government, which, I would remind hon. members, has complete and total responsibility for managing the resource, has in fact managed it.

The resource has been managed in such a way that nowadays we cannot even fish for cod in the Atlantic, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and off Newfoundland. Let us see what is happening elsewhere in the world. Let us take Iceland as an example. In Iceland, since the late 1970s, they have managed the resource in such a way that now, in the waters of Iceland—a tiny country—they can catch from 212,000 to 250,000 tonnes of cod per year.

Last year, we caught only 6,000 tonnes. Now we are no longer fishing, because there is a moratorium on cod. The resource has been badly managed. Foreign vessels were allowed to pillage the waters off Newfoundland, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and over the years in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as well. For solely political gain, huge foreign vessels have been allowed to drag the sea floor and totally destroy the resource.

The current government is not the only one responsible. This has been going on for 50 years. Quebec has been demanding to manage the resource ever since 1994. Newfoundland is now calling for co-management, and rightly so. If we allow the present government to continue to manage the resource, whether shrimp, crab or other resources, there will be no fishery left within 10 years.

[Committees of the House, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just referred to something very important. As far as public awareness is concerned, he just addressed one of the elements that we would like to see put into practice. He was asking me how I could have that problem while on the lake in my canoe or in my boat. Let us say that it is a bigger boat. I do not know much about boats, but let us say that I am not rowing, at least.

It is very simple. People go from one lake to another. What they do not know is that once they have been on a contaminated lake with their boat, eggs are stuck underneath the boat. The boat should be completely cleaned and washed before being put into a new body of water, to eliminate potential contamination.

This is a very important element in terms of prevention. Can people imagine what that means when they take their boat out of the water? In terms of prevention, it is really important. If they take your boat out of the water to bring it to another body of water, it absolutely has to be cleaned. But did somebody ever tell them that they had to do it? Probably not.

This is where the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans blames the current government. The government is responsible for protecting the resource. Thus, it has the responsibility of informing citizens on the measures that must be taken to avoid spreading the contamination from one body of water to another. This is not being done at this time. The committee has asked for this. Voluntary community organizations have also asked that the government supports them in their public awareness and information campaigns. This is very important.

Of course, when one does not know about this issue, one cannot think that this can have such a major impact on bodies of water in Quebec and across the country. One cannot imagine that we are unconsciously destroying our resources.

We can talk about the zebra mussel. I talked about this earlier. This is the main species that invades our waters. It is virtually indestructible, because it reproduces extremely fast. I could show you a picture of a shopping cart that was put in the Great Lakes for a few months. When it was taken out, zebra mussels had covered the whole cart. It had become almost invisible; it was almost a sculpture. This gives an idea of the ability of this creature to invade our waters.

This is currently happening in the St. Lawrence River, at Montreal, and in the bodies of water wherever there is a connection with the St. Lawrence and the drainage basins.

[Committees of the House, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague from St. John's West, who, if memory serves me well, sits with me on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

In the last few months, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans produced a unanimous report on invasive species. For the benefit of those who are listening, I will explain what an invasive species is. It is a species that is foreign to our waters, that is imported into our waters and, over the years, takes the place of our indigenous species.

Why does that happen? How is it that our waters have, over the years, become invaded by such species, to the point where the fisheries in the Great Lakes, among other places, are threatened, and where it is costing the industry billions of dollars? And the problem is not restricted to the Great Lakes because, as I explained earlier, the invasive species in question start appearing at the point where salt water becomes fresh water, since they cannot survive in salt water, which does not mean that there are no invasive species in salt water.

Where do these species come from? The evidence that we have heard indicates that the main problem comes from ballast water from ships that come into our waters and go up the St. Lawrence River and the St. Lawrence Seaway to reach the Great Lakes. That is the main reason for the presence of these so-called invasive species in our waters.

My hon. colleague was talking about species that people may know a little less well, but let us just talk about the zebra mussel. It is very well known in our waters, even here in Quebec. It is gradually invading all our territory and all our waters, and can go anywhere there is fresh water, even right up to Lake Champlain and in all our waterways. This mussel attacks our indigenous species. For example, it can invade an entire area because it is not a large mussel. It can attach itself to other kinds of mussels—the native ones which are much larger—or to other kinds of molluscs, and gradually suffocate them. The other aspect is that zebra mussels are highly toxic. When birds eat this kind of mussel, they take in a lot of very toxic elements; all the toxic elements that the mussels have filtered out of the water are released back into the environment. So, it is perhaps the most well-known invasive species.

There is another harmful factor associated with zebra mussels, and that is their invasion of municipal drinking-water conduits. They invade the cooling conduits of factories, and it costs billions of dollars to clean the conduits out and restore them to normal use. When the systems for cooling the motors of boats and large ships are involved, it can be a very serious problem. The mussels invade the conduits, attach themselves to the walls and may cause serious problems. They are perhaps the most well-known invasive species in Quebec.

We could also talk about lampreys. The lamprey is a very special kind of fish that attaches itself to other fish and sucks out all their blood. The lamprey has almost destroyed fishing in the Great Lakes. The fight against it has cost billions of dollars and is not over. Unfortunately, the Government of Canada's investment, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over the years, has not been enough.

Thus, we do not have the tools to effectively control these invasive species, except perhaps for the lamprey, where we had a program that worked well, thanks to the commitment of volunteers and various organizations. But right now we do not have sufficient resources and scientific knowledge to control invasive species. First, as the committee recommended, the regulations for the various provinces involved and for Quebec should be consolidated. A common goal is needed if we are to control these species.

I remind the House that responsibility for the protection of the resource falls squarely under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. When we do not control invasive species, we do not protect our native resource, which is very important for the industry.

Thus, consolidated regulations would be necessary. Before I go further, perhaps I should specify that we are currently using the American regulations on invasive species. Ships must report to Saint-Lambert, in Quebec. The American regulations apply.

Canada was supposed to pass regulations within 10 years and this has not been done yet. Of course, we are asking the government to speed up the process, to come to an agreement with the provinces, with Quebec and with the Americans, to have the same regulations is so far as possible.

Another invasive species mentioned by my hon. colleague is the green crab. People may not know the green crab, but it is currently destroying all mussels and shellfish on the Atlantic coast and it has also invaded the Pacific coast. If I am not mistaken, this species originated from the Barents Sea. Over time, it has invaded our territory and it will destroy our resource, unless we find a way to fight it successfully and, as my hon. colleague said, refuse to grant quotas. From the moment the government grants quotas, we can see that after a while, we start destroying the resource ourselves.

I think that the way fisheries have been managed here in Canada for the past 50 years, it is easy to see that by granting quotas, by managing as we have, we are destroying the resource. This is a resource that could be used even though it has less value.

It seems very important to me that we raise public awareness of invasive species. People should read the report tabled last week by the Standing Committee on Fisheries an Oceans. This report sets out the directions to combat invasive species.

One very important point raised in the recommendations contained in the committee's report on aquatic invasive species is that the government should not try to tackle this problem on its own. I think that public awareness is very important.

I mentioned aquatic species but I could also talk about terrestrial species. I could talk, for instance, about the algae that have invaded our waterways—all the way from the Richelieu River to Lake Champlain for example—depriving our waters of oxygen and making them less and less hospitable to the native species normally found in these waters. I could talk about the pollution affecting these waterways, which makes certain species proliferate where they did not use to.

In a nutshell, there is a serious problem and the government must not try to solve it on its own. It is absolutely necessary that volunteer groups and community groups be involved in the process with the federal, provincial or Quebec government, as the case may be, as required or appropriate.

Another committee recommendation stresses the importance of educating the public about invasive species. Earlier I spoke about how invasive species enter our waterways. I spoke about ballast water. I reminded the House that we do not even have our own regulations, that we apply American regulations. It is the U.S. that applies the regulations in question in Saint-Lambert, Quebec. They are the ones who carry out the inspections and so on because they are really quite affected by this. Ships travelling up the St. Lawrence along the U.S. border also affect the American fishery.

I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier. It is very important for community groups to be involved and to obtain the funds required for public awareness campaigns.

As I mentioned, we feel that ballast water is the main cause of the problem, but fishers and hunters also contribute to it. Fishers can transplant so-called invasive species in our waters, by using them as bait.

Once these species have become established, they adapt more and more and end up choking out our own native resources.

My colleague also spoke about another invasive species that almost destroyed the entire Great Lakes fishery. It is the infamous Asian carp. People do not seem to know about the Asian carp. It is a huge fish that eats just about everything in its way on the bottom and destroys all of the habitat where native fish spawn and reproduce. In Ontario, it has been a veritable catastrophe.

Contrary to what people believe, there are no prohibitions right now on importing this type of fish that can invade our waters and completely destroy our native resource into Canada. What the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is asking for is that these fish not be imported live into Canada in order to prevent our waters from being polluted by these species.

We also have another problem at this time. Some species are gradually working their way towards our waters from the United States. There are measures we can take, there are methods to prevent these invasive species from one day reaching the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence all the way down to Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatière, where the salt water and fresh water meet.

Furthermore, it is known that, given the current low water levels in the Great Lakes, sea water is flowing upriver toward Quebec, which will cause a very significant change in the ecology of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, thereby causing major changes to the resource. So, governments must recognize this situation and protect our fish.

The other point I want to stress is our significant ignorance about aquatic ecosystems, because we have not invested sufficiently in knowledge and fundamental research with respect to our ecosystems. It is absurd that, in 2003, we have allowed our waters to be invaded by species such as the Asian carp, the lamprey, the zebra mussel and the European green crab, without taking any measures.

Although we knew that these species were invading our territory, we did not take the time nor invest the money needed to try to understand, adapt and ensure that we could effectively fight the arrival of these species. Perhaps it is not obvious, but currently, billions of dollars are lost each year in terms of the resource and the fishery, because these species have been allowed to invade our waters.

This is comparable to the forestry with the eastern spruce budworm epidemic, among other things, because it was very visible. Given that it was very visible, a great deal of money was invested to control this insect that was destroying our forests. I could give some examples, such as the British Colombia pine that experienced a similar problem or the problem in New Brunswick last year. Since it was very visible and the forestry is very profitable, the governments decided to invest a great deal to control the eastern spruce budworm.

If we compare forestry to fisheries, I think that more money was lost by allowing invasive species to enter our waters than was lost with the eastern spruce budworm and other insects that attacked our forests. There is a sort of unawareness in the federal government when it comes to fish and fishing.

This has been going on for 50 years now. It is not only the current government, it has been every federal government that has not invested enough in the fishery. Not enough has been invested in terms of knowledge and research. For ten years now there have been serious cuts in research budgets. Funding has only started to increase again in the last year or so.

The absolute minimum is to have the necessary knowledge to control invasive species and better manage our ecosystems and our planet.

When we talk about the Kyoto protocol, we could talk about ecosystems. And as for invasive species, we could talk about their role in changing our ecosystems and the danger they represent. They are a danger not only to fish, as I mentioned earlier.

When we talk about the zebra mussel, we know it is a filter and it is very toxic. When found in huge quantities in our waters and eaten by animals, it becomes part of our ecosystems. In the end, we humans will suffer the consequences, because toxins gradually move up the food chain so that one day they will reach us and we will have to pay the price of not investing enough in research and knowledge.

In conclusion, my colleague for St. John's West made a request earlier regarding the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I will remind the House that the report is unanimous. It is not the first unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I find this one very important. Like my colleague, I would like the House to adopt this report and see that it is implemented in full.

Moreover, I would like us to go even further than the report. We heard a lot of witnesses in committee. We heard from people from all over the place: the Great Lakes, Quebec, the east coast, the west coast, and so on. They all said the same thing, namely that we are not investing enough and that we are constantly threatened by invasive species because right now we do not have the means to control them effectively or to effectively prevent them from entering our waters.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, steps must be taken and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is recommending measures. I would like the House of Commons as a whole to endorse them to make them more effective. We might want to add a few more mesaures and, eventually, develop the necessary tools to deal with this kind of problem.

[Committees of the House, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the motion he has brought to our attention this afternoon.

Contrary to what is generally believed and to what the public knows, the invasive species are a real disaster. My colleague spoke essentially about the Great Lakes, but the problem is also present in the St. Lawrence seaway and in the freshwater portion of the St. Lawrence River. Except in the salt water portion of the river, the problem is exactly the same as in the Great Lakes.

Also, contrary to what people believe on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, we also have invasive species on our coasts that are destroying our resources, particularly oysters, mussels and other species. My colleague did not talk much about it, but we also have the green crab.

The report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on invasive species is a unanimous report. In my opinion, the contents of this report should be completely implemented. It deals once again with the mismanagement of the fisheries over the years.

I would like my colleague to comment on the recommendations in this report. I would like him to give a general overview, so that people can understand the work the committee has done and the policy it would like the government to implement.

[Fisheries, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans realize that with the increase in shrimp quotas, he is creating the same situation as with crab and cod? Is that good management?

[Fisheries, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the shrimp industry is vital to several communities in eastern Quebec. To help the fishers in Newfoundland, the government decided to increase by a third the fishing quotas in the Atlantic, which will definitely lower market prices.

How does the government reconcile this quota increase after acknowledging a weak market last year and its willingness to make this fishery more stable by refusing to broaden access to the resource?