Jean-Yves Roy

[Fisheries, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the real reason for the slump being felt by Gaspé fishers is the federal government's mismanagement of the fisheries. Today, with the stocks gone and a moratorium declared, boat owners have enormous problems, and the workers are unemployed.

Will the government admit that the eastern fishery is in need of a comprehensive plan which would include buying back licences in order to help the boat owners and more specific measures relating to employment insurance for these workers, who have been left high and dry?

[Committees of the House, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Charlevoix for his question.

I would like to remind him—for he was not a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans—that this committee has already issued a report on seal management.

We do come back to it over and over; he is perfectly correct. In his region and in the neighbouring riding, people are interested in developing seal processing plants. But in addition to processing the seals, there has to be some effort made by the government to develop markets. We know that there are markets, in Asia for example, but we also know that the American market is closed to us. We shall have to remove the barriers to this market in order to develop processing industries.

Of course, we have a market, but at any one time there is a limit on the market's ability to absorb a product. It is possible to increase quotas, but only if the markets can absorb the product. It is a case of supply and demand. But the federal government, along with the provincial governments, absolutely must make the effort to develop the markets.

In the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I put this question to officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They spend a few thousand dollars on their efforts to promote all our sea products, not just one product, the seal. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not even spend $100,000.

One of the officials told me that other departments, for instance, International Trade and Agriculture were providing funding. But the question I then asked her was, “How much money is the federal government spending on promoting the products we manufacture?” She could not tell me.

[Committees of the House, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, before I begin, I would like to correct an impression left by my hon. friend from Saint John a few moments ago. She said that people in the Maritimes have the impression that Canada seems to stop at the Quebec border. I would like to reassure her: Canada stops at the Ontario border and begins again in the Maritimes. There is a vast space in between, known as Quebec, which, one day I hope, will become a country. I simply want to reassure her.

I would also like to reassure my hon. friend from St. John's West and tell him that in fact we did support the report and we support the motion he is presenting here today.

Perhaps I should say that we supported both reports. There was one in May 2002 on foreign overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and another in March 2003 regarding custodial management outside the 200-mile limit.

We have to back up here and take a brief look at what has happened, especially with groundfish management around Newfoundland and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The people of Newfoundland are not the only ones seriously affected by the reduction of fish stocks and by the systematic destruction of this resource caused by the federal government's total neglect.

We must understand that since 1949—since Newfoundland joined Confederation—the management of this resource has been the responsibility of the federal government. And what has the federal government done? It has let things go and over the years the resource has been wiped out.

But how can an essentially responsible government be permitted to let things get to the point where a resource is on the verge of disappearing and eventually destroying the economy of a region? The destruction of the resource may destroy the economy of Newfoundland, the Gaspé and the lower St. Lawrence region.

In May 2002, the committee asked that the Government of Canada do something with respect to what was happening outside the 200-mile limit, and with respect to NAFO countries that were fishing outside the limit. We were hoping that the government would manage the resource, that it would take a custodial management approach outside the 200-mile limit.

From one NAFO meeting to the next, the government tells us that there have been improvements and that progress is being made. However, if we look at the reality of the situation, that appears to be completely false. In actual fact, the resource continues to dwindle. Once again this year, it is highly probable that there will be an almost complete moratorium on cod and groundfish in our region.

What does this mean for communities? It means that there will be more jobs lost and that plants will be closed, putting people who are not necessarily trained to do other jobs, out of work in a region hard hit by the moratorium in the early 1990s. This means that the economies of my region and of a province like Newfoundland will decline even faster.

We know that starting in 1990, the moratorium caused people to leave Newfoundland and the Gaspé Peninsula. The impact of what happened in Newfoundland is still felt today. People leave because there are no more jobs, plants close and, in the end, there is no future in the fishery. People see no future in the fishery in these provinces and in the region I come from.

My colleague spoke today about a problem specific to fishers on the Lower North Shore. Once again, based on the simple principles of sound management, the government needs to realize that fishers in a specific situation should receive assistance.

This does not seem to be the case with this government, nor with the federal government over the years.

The response to that statement might be “Yes, but in the early 1990s the federal government invested $2 billion to sustain the economy of regions affected by the moratorium”.

Had $2 billion been invested to protect the resource,we might not be confronted with this problem today, and would certainly not have had to confront the one that occurred in the early 1990s. Had resource management really been focused on conservation, and on protecting the resource, the problem would not be with us today.

Instead, there is a serious problem, as we were told by the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when we travelled to Newfoundland and eastern Quebec. They told us that the catastrophe was of nearly unimaginable proportions, biblical proportions as one of the witnesses, Mr. Cashin, put it. He said:

We are dealing here with a famine of biblical scale—a great destruction. The social and economic consequences of this great destruction are a challenge to be met and a burden to be borne by the nation, not just those who are its victims.

Since the resource belongs to the community as a whole, this means that the community as a whole has had, in the end, to bear the brunt of the poor resource management by the federal government over the years.

Today the committee is calling for a unanimous report, as has been said. Everyone says it is a unanimous report. It must be kept in mind that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has produced two unanimous reports on the subject.

These both call upon the government to take forceful and firm action so as to protect the resource, and to take steps to ensure that the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, respects the rules and conservation-based resource management. In particular, it must ensure that the NAFO member countries take into consideration the scientific opinions provided to them. These, of course, call for reduced fishing, and for the fishing restrictions to be respected.

As regards the main problem with NAFO, another observer, someone who was taking part in one of NAFO's meetings and who, of course, is not an official from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, testified before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I will read the testimony that he gave to the committee.

When it comes to sharing the resource, to set quotas, to allocate quotas to NAFO's member countries, the Government of Canada comes back and says, “Yes, but we made some gains”. Here is what Early McCurdy, the president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, thinks about this, and I quote:

Many of the points that were mentioned as gains or achievements on the part of Canada at the meeting simply maintained the share we have always had. There has not been any real breakthrough or success regarding compliance with the scientific recommendations. Whenever a large quantity of fish is involved, I can tell you that conservation comes second to appetite.

What does this mean? Let us not forget that the Government of Canada provides almost 50% of NAFO's budget. We are the ones supporting an organization that is not working. We are the ones supporting an organization that is stealing our resource and depriving us of our livelihood. That is what we are doing.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is asking the government to react strongly in order to protect the resource, not just for the people of Newfoundland, because, as I said, there are also problems over the whole territory, that is in the Gaspé and elsewhere.

Earlier, the hon. member referred to the seal issue. As we know, and the hon. member mentioned it, each individual seal can consume about a tonne of fish per year. Imagine what happens with seven million seals, a figure that may reach eight million next year.

Imagine the pressure these little predators are exerting on the resource, particularly cod, which is of course their main diet. One can imagine the damage caused by such a large and growing number of seals; they are completely destroying the resource.

A journalist once asked me why I was in favour of increasing the seal hunt. I replied that I prefer humans to seals. It is as simple as that. I prefer people to be able to live without destroying the resources. I prefer people to continue to make a living honourably instead of living on welfare or employment insurance.

It is true that this year a slight increase in the number of seals that can be harvested has been allowed. There is talk of 350,000 out of a herd of 7 or 8 million. This will not prevent the herd from maintaining its numbers and continuing to increase.

We must also consider, as I said to that journalist, that we should not destroy the seals as a resource. Because it may be a resource that ought to be used, that we should continue to harvest, and into which we should put some effort. What we are asking for, in fact, is that some effort be put into marketing this product.

We have also asked some effort be made to export this resource to countries like the United States, which, at present, are not allowing us to export products derived from seals. That is totally unacceptable. The Minister for International Trade tell us, “Yes, but we are negotiating”. Negotiations have been ongoing for years, but nothing has changed. This reminds me of the softwood lumber issue. We hear that things are going well. It may be so, but this has been an issue for a long time and yet things are going so well that nothing has been settled. The crisis continues, and our plants are closing.

There is a very similar problem on the seal issue. The minister has told me repeatedly, “We are negotiating; we are going to Washington”. He is telling us that they will come to an agreement in the end, that the negotiations will yield results. But when? When will we be able to sell our products to the U.S.? As we have been hearing recently, the AMericans apparently need us, they must respect us and they are our closest friends. When will our closest neighbours and friends open their door to us, so that we can offer them this worthwhile product from our region, from Newfoundland and the Magdalen Islands in particular?

To conclude, it is important that the government react quickly. The resource is disappearing. Unless the government takes firm action, this resource will disappear, and this government will be to blame for it.

As the Chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans indicated, for once—and this was quite unheard of—the members of a House of Commons committee, on which all parties were represented, managed to agree unanimously on something. I do not think this will ever happen again at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. If it does, it will be under different circumstances and on different issues or topics.

Twice, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans submitted to the minister a unanimous report, asking that he take action, and firm action. The first time, we did not get a real response. This time, we want a real one. In conclusion, we are asking that the government take action, firm action, as soon as possible.

[Fisheries, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council's recommendations on the cod fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence should not serve as a pretext for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal government to abdicate their responsibilities. Whether there is a total moratorium or not, this industry and the communities affected by the minister's decision will suffer a major blow.

Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to a real assistance plan, whether there is a total moratorium or not?

[Food and Drugs Act, April 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary and I assure him of my full cooperation on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to settle the issue of the Mont-Louis wharf. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the industry and of the fishermen who use it, this is an urgent situation. It is absolutely essential that the work begin in 2003.

[Food and Drugs Act, April 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to repeat the question asked in this House during oral question period on March 24. Naturally, it concerned the wharf belonging to Fisheries and Oceans Canada at Mont-Louis. As I said at the time, this wharf is in terrible disrepair. The breakwater and the front of the Fisheries and Oceans wharf are in need of major repairs.

The parliamentary secretary—who is here this evening and who will answer me shortly—told me at the time that the small craft harbours program for this year had not yet been announced, but that it would be forthcoming quite soon, it being that time of year.

Currently, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is considering the department's budgets. I noticed that the small craft harbours program budget was decreasing each year. Even though the government had increased the overall budget by $20 million per year, and this money was starting to be invested—fortunately for all fishing regions—the department's small craft harbour program budget was decreasing.

I want to point out that the Mont-Louis wharf is connected to a plant, a seafood processing plant named Cuisimer. The wharf is essential to the operations of that plant. It is very important, because that plant creates jobs for residents of Mont-Louis.

Mont-Louis is located in the Gaspé, not far from Murdochville. Following the crisis that occurred in Murdochville with the closure of its main business, many people were laid off, not only residents of Murdochville, but also Mont-Louis.

So, as the president of the corporation said, if we do not repair the Mont-Louis wharf rather quickly, the plant will have to move, because it will not be profitable to transfer port operations elsewhere and to transport by trucks the seafood products that the company wants to process in Mont-Louis.

Moreover, as the president of the corporation also pointed out, another seafood processing plant located in Matane, the Matane shrimp plant, is interested in using the Mont-Louis wharf, and the reason is very simple.

As we know, and the parliamentary secretary knows it as well as I do, in the Gaspé, there is a very high concentration of northern shrimp not far off the coast of Mont-Louis and Rivière-Madeleine. Therefore, the Mont-Louis wharf is the closest facility and it would help ensure the safety of fishermen, while making it possible to continue to adequately supply the Cuisimer plant.

In a letter that he sent on March 21 to Mr. Malouin, the director of Fisheries and Oceans in Gaspé, Mr. Normand insisted that the Mont-Louis wharf should not only be repaired quickly, but urgently, adding that the work should be done, if at all possible, this summer. In fact, the work should begin this spring because, as I pointed out, there is a processing plant adjacent to the wharf.

In his letter of March 21, which was addressed to all the stakeholders involved in small craft harbours, Mr. Normand also adds that this is a safety issue for shrimp fishermen.

[Farmers, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is suggesting that it is farmers in Quebec who are resisting his program. However, the letter from the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food indicates quite the opposite.

Does the minister realize that all of the farmers in Canada want more time?

[Mont-Louis Wharf, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the breakwater and the front of the Fisheries and Oceans wharf at Mont-Louis in the Gaspé are in need of major repairs. Access to a properly maintained and safe wharf is essential to the seafood processing plant.

The people of Mont-Louis are waiting for a decision. When does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans plan to announce the timeframe for the wharf upgrade and maintenance plan?

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, there is one thing that my hon. colleague needs to understand. Violence begets violence; it is unavoidable. Our democracy will have to learn that lesson someday.

It is pointless to initiate a violent action without the authorization of the United Nations, without the backing of the United Nations and other international institutions. For any action that is questionable, there will be a reaction, and that reaction might be even more violent than the action itself. If you have the backing of the United Nations, then you have the backing of the whole international community.

Therefore, if there is a reaction, it can be dealt with. In what direction is the action initiated by the United States taking us? If more attacks like those of September 11 were to be sponsored by another country, will the U.S. feel they have the right to attack that country right away?

Let us take a more concrete example. If an attack were to come from Indonesia, one of the largest countries in the world, would the U.S. decide to attack Indonesia the next day? That is what we need to understand. No action can be justified without the backing of international institutions.

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to my habit, I am not going to say that I am pleased to speak today. I believe that the situation is extremely serious and dangerous. It may be much more serious than we think it is today and perhaps even more than we may realize now.

This morning, at 11:06 a.m., I was watching and listening to the news. I will give a few examples. Of course, I will not quote all of the examples that I saw. Simply on the news at 11:06 a.m., it was mentioned that the first refugees had arrived in Jordan.

Shortly after the beginning of the attack, around 11 p.m., the United States initiated a global alert in anticipation of potential terrorist acts against American citizens in foreign countries. Artillery fire has allegedly been heard at the Kowait-Iraq border. Israel has asked its people to start wearing gas masks, and I could go on. At 11 a.m., CNN confirmed that two oilfields in southern Iraq were on fire. There might be more now.

Eye witnesses report that southern Iraq has been under heavy bombardment. In Italy, demonstrations against the war are being held in several cities, and I could go on. There is talk of sirens, of attacks. There is talk of people having been injured, but all we see on our television screens is a green image that looks like a video game; an image that looks like what our kids use in our houses on their computers. But this has nothing to do with video games. This has absolutely nothing to do with these games. This is a real war, an intensive war that could give rise to a major increase in terrorism.

We know that all our communities, countries and the countries of the free world have been forced to dramatically increase security because attacks are anticipated.

War has been declared and a country like Iraq is being attacked. Naturally I do not condone the regime that governs Iraq. I cannot condone a dictator. I do not condone the way Saddam Hussein treated his people, the Kurds and his neighbours in 1990.

But was it justified for democracies to attack Iraq without the approval of the United Nations? No, because as a democracy, we must respect democracy and the institutions that we have created, namely the United Nations. This is a fundamental principle. If we no longer respect the institutions that we have created for ourselves, if we as democracies no longer respect the institutions that we have promoted, that we have contributed to creating and continue to run, it will no longer be possible to enforce international law.

The arbitrary war against Iraq by the United States, Great Britain and Australia is very serious. This act is very serious for democracy and our international institutions, but it is also very serious for the women, children and citizens of Iraq who will suffer after already having suffered for years under a dictatorial regime. This desire to destroy a regime and replace a dictator adds to their suffering.

In 1970, I read Building Peace by Dominique Pire, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1958. After the events of September 11, I did not remember the reference, but I said that peace is much more than the silence of guns.

In 1990, after the gulf war, the guns were silenced. We stopped bombing Iraq, but what did we do as a democracy for the Iraqi people?

The Americans had promised to back the Sunni among others, in the south. And what happened? They did not really support them.

We need only look at the present-day situation in Afghanistan. The guns are silent, but have there been any real improvements? I would say not. At the present time in Afghanistan, we can consider that any real improvements are limited to the capital. The country is still under the domination of the war lords, who control the nation as a whole and are once again tyrannizing the population, especially women and children.

As far as the status of women is concerned, it is wrong to claim that Afghani women are living any different lives than they were under the Taliban.

I too have received e-mails, and will read from a few:

You have declared war on me, but I propose peace to you in return.

This reaction may seem as unreal as the 2001 attack on New York did.

In terms of democracy, this is, in my opinion, what our response to those attacks should have been and what our response should be today. You have declared a kind of war on us but we propose peace to you, the sort of peace in which we will provide you with help as a people, will help you develop, will help you to grow and progress.

I know that Saddam Hussein is no angel and that his regime is corrupt and dictatorial. But is it really necessary at this time to take action without the authority of the United Nations? Once again, I say no. As many nations around the world, including France, Russian and Germany, have said, given a little time, we might have been able to bring about a regime change.

Also, had we seriously taken matters into our hands right after the first gulf war, we might not have to change the regime in Iraq now. It would probably have been gone for years.

Let me quote from another excellent e-mail I have received:

Instead of praying for a few hours before launching into war for years to come, acting out of vengeance, out of the desire to fight terrorism, an announcement should be made to the effect that every effort will be made to build peace on justice and sharing.

As long as democracies do not understand that peace must be built, and built on the firm foundations of justice and sharing, we will continue to be faced with the same problems.

Terrorism flourishes in fertile ground. Poverty and misery constitute a breeding ground for terrorism, and there is no shortage of poverty and misery around the world. It is safe to say that two-thirds of the world population currently has to make do with the bare minimum and that the situation of the so-called fourth world is extremely tragic.

What is the Bloc Quebecois calling for today in its motion? It is simple, and I would like to come back to it. The Prime Minister of Canada told us, “We will not go to war.” However, we already have military personnel on site, and the Bloc would like the government to reconsider its position in that respect.