Jean-Yves Roy

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, the hon. member started at the end. I merely wanted to tell him that Liberal ministers managed the fisheries, and that Quebec has long asked to be involved in managing, for one thing, the fishery in Quebec. We are asking to manage the resource.

So, if it had not been for federal Liberal ministers, if the Quebec government had been managing the fishery, perhaps Quebec would not be experiencing so many problems in this area today. That is my answer to the hon. member.

I would like to point out something else. The hon. member said that the minister was honest in telling people that there might be a moratorium. People should not be told there might be a moratorium unless there are measures to help them. It is simple. To announce a possible moratorium, you say, “In the event of a moratorium, we will try to find ways to help you”. You do not say, “There might be a moratorium, thanks, have a nice day”. That is not how life works. If I tell you I am going to cut off one of your feet, I am going to tell you why. And I am going to tell you, “I am going to help you. I am going to try to look after you”. This is an example. If I am a doctor, and I tell you this one day out of the blue, I am at least going to offer you something to offset the news. I am going to say, “You will get something; we are going to try to help you”.

However, this is not what the minister did. The minister said, “There may be a moratorium, but we do not know what we can offer you. Perhaps we will help you. We do not know. There are programs in place”. We are told again today, “I am not responsible. It is other departments that are responsible. So we will sit down together”.

But we may be a month away from a moratorium. Imagine people in their living room saying, “In one month, I will have no job and I already no longer qualify for employment insurance, because the Liberal government cut my benefits. I am stuck in the gap”. What a life. What hope is the government giving to these people? Absolutely none. It tells them, “We will sit down and review the situation”. But we are a month away from a possible moratorium. I am sorry, but it is a little late to start thinking. The government should have begun its thinking process long before; it should have set up a committee with the provinces and the main stakeholders, as we had asked back in November, but this was done only after the holidays. Again, this is a little late.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, earlier, before coming into the House of Commons chamber, I reviewed statistics from Fisheries and Oceans Canada going all the way back to 1980. I was wondering how Quebec had managed not to rebel. Over the years since 1980, the Government of Quebec has been asking the federal government to recognize the division, along provincial lines, of the access to common pool fisheries resources in order to stop the erosion of Quebec's historic share.

I must quote a very specific example of the situation some species are in. In recent years, that is from 1995 to 2000, when we look at the fisheries in Quebec, the overall loss in tonnes suffered by the industry has been absolutely terrible.

For the crab fishery, the loss was 983 tonnes; for cod, 2,450 tonnes; for the gulf shrimp, 275 tonnes; for the northern shrimp, 27,159 tonnes; for black turbot, 2,069 tonnes. We lost a total of 32,936 tonnes in terms of fishing rights in Quebec between 1995 and 2000.

We are facing a very serious situation in Quebec. There is this continuous erosion. The situation is worsening, with the prospect of a moratorium on cod.

First, I want to review the past a little, to see what was done in Fisheries and Oceans since the federal government took over. I would simply point out that, in 1992, the Canadian government signed the Rio Declaration, which contained the precautionary principle and the sustainable development principle.

In the fall of 2001 in Paris, this same government took part in a week-long international conference, five days from 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. I attended this conference, and I am still yawning. We prepared fisheries plans at this conference. It was on oceans, law of the sea, fisheries, aquaculture, sustainable development and the precautionary principle. We prepared the plans together to ensure the future of the fisheries.

In the fall of 2002, after the Johannesburg summit, this same government—which had agreed with what was prepared in Paris—signed the same plans that were submitted. If we look at the past—I hope that the future will be different—we see, in terms of federal fisheries management, that marine resources have been unfairly distributed.

I noticed this earlier and I pointed it out; Quebec's historic shares are not being respected. This is extremely important to the Gaspé. In the Gaspé, the fisheries are part of its history, they built the Gaspé, they ensured its development.

The cod moratorium, obviously, could kill an entire industry, a traditional industry that has developed over the years and that is internationally renowned. Cod, for example, is dried and salted.

Marine resources are unfairly distributed. In the past, the department showed a certain lack of responsibility. There were numerous hesitations by one minister after another in making decisions to protect the resource. If the resource had been protected, we would not be here today facing the possibility of a moratorium on cod fishing and, possibly, other types of fishing.

In fact, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is no protection outside the 200 mile zone. NAFO member countries come to fish, they literally come to steal our resource without any real control measures and without sufficient action being taken by the government to make these people understand that we need to protect our resource, that we need to maintain it not only for us but for future generations.

We can also say that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not really cooperated with Quebec, with the rest of the provinces and with fishers. I am still talking about the past.

All we hear when we meet fishers and other stakeholders is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does hold consultations everywhere, but every time, the result is the same; it does not change anything whether or not there are consultations. The government consults us, but it does not heed our recommendations. It consults fishers, but it does not heed their recommendations.

Let us take the seal industry as an example. Fishers have been saying for years that seals are the main predators for cod and groundfish. Fishers who are there have been telling the department for years that seal quotas have to be increased so that predation by seals is less damaging to the resource.

Unfortunately, it is only this year that quotas have started to increase significantly. Now, as I mentioned to the minister earlier, we must develop markets so that this industry can prosper. If it is not replaced, the existing fishing industry will at least have to be rejuvenated, particularly with regard to the development of the seal industry.

I want to come back to the possible cod moratorium, because this is an issue that I think is very important. I am not sure if it was a good idea for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to throw out the idea that there might be a cod moratorium right before Christmas.

If I were one of the 4,000 workers affected, I am not sure what kind of a Christmas I would have had. I do not know how I would have taken the news, knowing that I am an EI recipient, knowing that I was coming up to the spring gap, and not knowing if I would have a job and if I would be able to provide for my family to live decently in the spring, when I would no longer be receiving EI.

What we were calling for, when the idea of a possible cod moratorium was raised last fall, was a real support program. But when we talk about a real support program, we are talking about a program that will help people survive and get through the crisis. We are not talking about the current EI measures, which do not support people enough to get through them the crisis.

What I mean by a support program is a support program for the regions that are affected and direct support for the people affected. What happened in the early 1990s, when the first moratorium was set, was that there was an assistance program, but it did not necessarily assist the people who were affected, the plant workers. Fishers wound up without any income and on social assistance because the assistance programs did not target them properly and did not meet their needs.

You cannot take fishers out of the industry when they have worked in it for 30 years. You cannot make them into high tech workers overnight. That is impossible. We have to provide targeted assistance programs that meet these people's real needs and provide them with an adequate income.

If people wind up in difficult circumstances, it will be because of mismanagement at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Therefore, as we have pointed out on several occasions, we must create assistance programs through all the organizations, whether it is fishers who will be affected themselves or fishers' associations, particularly on the Lower North Shore and the North Shore of the St. Lawrence River, because they are the ones who could be the most affected.

We are talking about over 4,000 people who could be affected, not just in the Gaspé. These 4,000 people include over 1,000 workers in Quebec. When we talk about 1,000 workers, we are not just talking about 1,000 individuals, but about 1,000 families that will be affected.

In the Gaspé, this is a catastrophe, because the unemployment rate is already very high. The region was hit very hard by the 1992 moratorium. Whenever there is a crisis in the fisheries, the region experiences a catastrophe that generates gloom. It is very hard. When it hits, some 1,000 jobs are lost overnight, which means that 1,000 families are in dire straits and that about 3,000 or 4,000 individuals are affected.

This is very hard in a region where unemployment is already very high, because these people no longer have any hope. They do not know where to go. They do not necessarily have the training to do something else.

It is essential that the federal government be involved in and committed to a true assistance program. It must not do what it has done in the past, and it must definitely not rely only on what is provided under the employment insurance program.

In 2002, the total allowable catch for cod was 7,000 tonnes in northern Gaspé and 6,000 tonnes in the south of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Economic spinoffs are of the order of $30 million, for a poor region like the Gaspé. So, this is very important. This is $30 million which, all of a sudden, is available to thousands of people who collect employment insurance benefits during part of the season. This $30 million is very important for the economy. I could go on, but I will get back to this later on.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, my question will be very short. The minister was just talking about the increase in the seal hunt, which has gone from 312,000 last year to 350,000 this year.

There is a problem. We have been negotiating with the Koreans for years without being able to break into this market. We have been negotiating with the Americans for years and are unable to break into this market. If we increase the number of seals caught, the markets have to open up.

When we put a question in the House to the minister responsible, he says, “We are in negotiations”. Do you know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of the softwood lumber situation. One of these days we will be told once again that there is no solution.

Is it possible that one day the Korean and American markets will open up?

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to answer my colleague.

As I said earlier, when I looked at this budget, the first question that came to my mind was, “Is there really anything for the regions?” I say no.

Take the softwood lumber example. Mills are currently closing in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois asked for the second phase of a true assistance program. What we got was the first phase. Where is the second phase that was announced? It is urgently needed. No one says anything about it anymore. It is another illusion, another promise.

When I talk about assisting the regions, I am talking about employment insurance, among other things. I will give the parliamentary secretary a very concrete example. Tourism is an industry in my riding. Right now, it is mostly seasonal work. If you want to hire young people from a cégep in the region, such as the Rivière-du-Loup cégep, forget it. They will not be able to work for 52 weeks because this is a seasonal industry. At the end of the first year, what do they do? They go to Toronto or Montreal. That is how regions are gutted and that is how you gutted mine.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that, contrary to what he just said, I did look line by line or almost.

At present, with the Canada health and social transfer, more is invested in health. Obviously, this will affect my region.

But 16 cents on the dollar will not help increase services much. Funding will not be back to where it was, and it will not make it possible to provide more services or to meet all the needs. It only responds to part of the needs.

As far as EI is concerned, in the last election campaign, in 2000, people expressed outrage in public forums in New Brunswick and promised EI reform. How much has been achieved to date? It should happen in two or three years, we are told.

I would answer my hon. colleague that we have had it with promises. What we want is action. We want a real independent EI fund to be established. We do not want any more studies. People in our regions have been suffering long enough from the cuts that were made.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague, who has ended her speech with an example that I use all the time: it is better to repair a leaky roof than to pay the mortgage. A house will be worth nothing if its roof keeps leaking.

The image that came to mind when I was listening to the budget speech is that this is budget of illusions. One need only look at all the announcements that have been made, and will be made. There are some really good examples.

Tomorrow morning, if there were a change in finance minister or prime minister, I bet that 70% of what was announced in the budget speech would disappear in a puff of smoke.

The Quebec and Canadian economies would plummet, and 70% of what was announced in the budget speech would disappear in a puff of smoke.

There would be somewhat more complex financial problems, a higher unemployment rate, and 70% of everything announced in the budget speech would disappear in a puff of smoke. I can give some examples.

Here is what is said about helping Canadian families. There is talk of increasing the National Child Benefit, but only by 2007, according to the budget. People thought it was going to go up overnight, but it will only be a few dollars higher, and while the increase will start to kick in next year, the increase announced will not be fully in place until 2007.

Then there is the infrastructure program. As far as municipal infrastructure is concerned, there is talk of $1 billion over the next 10 years. So, ten years, ten billion divided by ten, gives about $100 million a year. Divide that amount by ten provinces and three territories and not much is left. In fact, it does not even build 10 km of highway, which is the example used in Quebec for municipal infrastructure.

What does a billion dollars over ten years mean? What guarantee do we have that in a year, or two, three, four or five years, a future finance minister or prime minister will respect that commitment? There is no obligation.

Let me give another example. There will be $320 million over the next five years to improve the agreements between the provinces and territories in terms of affordable housing. Once again, if we take $320 million divided by ten provinces and three territories over five years, what is left for Quebec? What is left for tomorrow to build suitable housing for those who need it? Practically nothing, that is what. There are no guarantees. Again, it is an illusion. There are no guarantees that in one, two or three years, this money will still be available. We are in the middle of the Liberal leadership race. The member for LaSalle—Émard, who is a candidate, did not necessarily agree with the measures proposed in the budget. He did not agree with the federal government engaging in what I would call rash spending, even though there is a huge surplus.

Another example is that of strengthening aboriginal communities. This one is my favourite. It is for $172.5 million over 11 years to support aboriginal languages and culture. Who can guarantee that in 11 years this measure will still be in effect? Who can guarantee that it will still be in effect a year or two from now?

When you read the budget it is the same throughout. It talks about health and transfers for health. Again, we are told that the cash portion of the Canada social transfer will be complete in 2006-07. The budget for the Canada social transfer will be complete in 2007-08. What we are looking at is 2006-07, 2007-08, or 10 or 11 years down the road. I doubt that anyone in this House will still be here by the time any of this might actually get done. This budget is a complete illusion.

The government has created expectations, particularly among the least well off, and these people are going to wake up to a painful reality when they realize that these expectations have not been met, despite the fact that they are being told they will be.

What we would have liked to have seen in the budget, what I personally would have liked to have seen and did not see, was something specifically for the regions. This budget contains absolutely nothing in terms of regional development. There is nothing to bolster existing regional development programs. There is nothing to strengthen Canada Economic Development programs.

There are regions such as mine, where the unemployment rate is 23%. These are regions that need immediate support, that need support not only from the Government of Quebec, but also from the federal government, given that we are still a part of Canada, unfortunately. And as long as we are a part, we should see some of our tax money, which is spent so poorly.

So, there are regions such as mine, and there are probably regions like yours, in Ontario and elsewhere, where people would have liked there to have been an increase in regional development budgets, to allow these regions to catch up to the rest of the economy and to continue to expand.

The only measure that I see, and it is ludicrous, is the cut in the transportation tax. That really rubs me the wrong way. Soon our region will no longer have any air service because Air Canada is supposed to pull out. But the government is going to cut the transportation tax anyway. Well, if there are no more flights, you cannot take the plane; it does not do you much good.

This is the type of measure which, supposedly, will help the regions. However, it is absolutely useless to us. What we want is help for regional transportation, particularly on the part of this government, which has totally abandoned the whole transportation system, including railways, airlines and so on.

Today, we can see that regions like mine will be hard hit by this type of measure. Indeed, when there is no longer a transportation system, it is very difficult to convince businesses to come and settle. An adequate transportation system is necessary in order to be competitive. This system must be provided at competitive prices, and we must make sure that people can travel and have access to markets.

So, the budget has not met, among other things, the need for a major investment in wind energy. The government talks about the Kyoto protocol, but instead of investing in new energies, it invests to benefit certain companies that pollute.

There is something else that we would have liked to see in the budget, but that is not included in it. I am referring to a true employment insurance reform. This government must stop plundering the employment insurance fund. The Bloc Quebecois, the unions and the employers in Quebec have long been asking the federal government to create a true employment insurance fund and program.

A true employment insurance program is one for which more than 40% of workers qualify. Currently, not even 40% of the workers qualify for the employment insurance program. People contribute to an insurance program, but do not qualify for benefits. This is unacceptable.

What the budget promises is that “Yes, we will look at this issue. We will review it”. However, the employment insurance program has been reviewed, amended, and so forth for years. And in recent years, since the cuts that began in 1993, it has been reviewed and reviewed again. Every year, the Department of Human Resources Development gives us its impressions.

As far as the employment insurance plan is concerned, I agree completely with the Auditor General: a real EI plan is urgently needed, with an independent fund administered by the workers, and we should make sure that this plan does not penalize regions like mine by requiring young people to accumulate 910 hours of work when they first enter the workforce.

[Canada Elections Act, February 17th, 2003]

Better late than never, indeed. But 26 years after Quebec, that is too long, in my opinion. Naturally, this has caused problems for governments in the past—there are members of this Parliament who can attest to that—for previous governments and, more recently, for this one.

When large corporations are allowed to finance political parties Canada-wide, these large corporations—it goes without saying, it is obvious—will try, as much as possible, to influence the policies put forward by the government.

That is the main problem with the politics of a country like ours. It is a problem because, as we know, people with money can influence politicians and political parties because they contribute substantial amounts to these political parties.

I mentioned corporations. But I could also talk about lobbies. We could look at what is happening in the United States. It is well known, for instance, that the gun lobby is very influential. This lobby makes contributions to both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, thus ensuring that it always has leverage, whichever party happens to be in office.

If we look at what went on before 1977 in Quebec, it is almost the same as the current situation at the federal level. In Quebec, people had the power to influence political parties. Large companies had the power to influence political parties by contributing money to them. We saw what went on under Maurice Duplessis. We saw a little later what went on under Jean Lesage.

That only changed with the arrival of the Parti Quebecois who, since 1970, had said there was a need for legislation to protect the fundamental institutions, our political parties. Political parties are a means of expression for the public. Political parties are vehicles to carry messages from the citizens to the National Assembly, in Quebec, and to the House of Commons at the federal level.

These political parties, the politicians, the elected members need to have some freedom and independence from big interests and groups that are able to pressure them with the money they invest.

Unfortunately, as I said earlier, this bill has a few flaws. The main one is the $10,000 limit for individuals. In Quebec, the current limit is $3,000. This has served us well since 1977. In the statutes and bylaws of the Bloc Quebecois, since our creation, we have proposed a limit of $5,000. That means an individual cannot contribute more than $5,000 a year to the Bloc Quebecois. If we rely on the current law, which will be replaced by the bill we are reviewing at present, this sum is more than acceptable. It must be remembered that there was no ceiling for companies or individuals, yet the Bloc Quebecois imposed its own ceiling of $5,000.

I feel this is a very large amount of money. Very few ordinary citizens can afford to hand over $10,000 to a political party. Let us be honest here, very few can.

Looking at Quebec's experience, 1.2% of the population makes over $2,000 in contributions each year to political parties. This goes to show that $10,000 is a very large amount.

The other problem, of course, is that corporations are allowed to contribute to political parties. For democracy to thrive, citizens must be allowed to get involved.

Naturally, fundraising takes more effort. As one of my colleagues said earlier, it is much more difficult to go to people, ordinary citizens, and ask them to contribute to a political party, to buy a membership card, to conduct yearly campaigns to raise money from other members to maintain a strong membership.

It is basic human nature to try to do as little as possible. But for a political party to thrive, to be what the people want it to be, I think that membership is very important and that individuals, the citizens who have the right to vote, should be the ones financing political parties. This gives them the opportunity to express their views within their party, their institution, and to collectively influence the decisions made by that party.

Now, a political party using public financing opens its doors to any citizen, regardless of income. It is then up to each citizen to stand up for their ideas within their institution, at general meetings, conventions and so forth.

After 26 years, the experience in Quebec has shown that it does work. So far, the two political parties—I say two parties, even though there is third one emerging—namely the Parti Quebecois and the Liberal Party, have been able to thrive, conduct election campaigns and continue to raise money, and perhaps even be freer. Not only have they perhaps been freer in their policies and decisions, but I think that these policies and decisions also reflected more accurately the views of the community as a whole.

In fact, the danger of a government financed only by big business and individuals with the means is that it may be managed in a vacuum. Only lobby groups with the means to put pressure on the government, either through financial contributions or otherwise, get a response. That is a danger.

During the last election campaign, for example, we saw what happened to voter turnout. There is a problem with democracy when people no longer believe in the system. This is very dangerous for democracy.

Democracy must therefore be strengthened, not made totally pure because that would be impossible. I think that the bill before us is a chance to improve federal democracy. As I was saying, we support this principle.

I have great difficulty with another component of the bill which, in section 404.1, allows contributions of “—$1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party may be made—”. This provision seems impossible to control.

During an election campaign, how are we to know if such and such a bank gave $1,000 in one riding—Matapédia—Matane, for example—and $1,000 in Ontario at the same time? We will only find out when the statements of all the candidates have been compiled. I think that this provision is very difficult to enforce and that it should be amended.

In conclusion, we support the principle of the bill because it will allow us to make our democracy stronger.

[Canada Elections Act, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24, recently introduced in this House and dealing with political party financing in particular.

From the outset, I must recognize that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, agree with the bill in principle. I will elaborate on this in my remarks, even if I have only 10 minutes. Ten minutes may seem like a long time to some, but it is a very short time for others.

I want to point out that the purpose of the bill is to clean up our political system. The idea is to do things the way they are done elsewhere. Naturally, Quebec was mentioned. In Quebec, legislation was passed 26 years ago. If memory serves, it was passed in 1977. But we must look at what was going on before then to understand that the purpose of the bill is truly to clean up politics. This bill has a number of flaws, and I will come back to that. Still, it is unfortunate that such a bill was so long in coming at the federal level.

[Seal Hunt, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since the fall of 1999, the federal government has worked with the American authorities in order to authorize seal product imports. These negotiations have been dragging on, and this situation is harming the seal industry in Quebec and the Maritimes.

What does the Minister for International Trade intend to do to exert the necessary pressure to speed up and finalize the negotiations?

[Canada Elections Act, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans for his comments. While he may have found his speech brief, it was certainly interesting and very enlightening as regards this bill.

I too agree with the principle of the bill, that is the democratization of the political party financing process. Earlier, a member opposite got himself all worked up when he claimed that the member for LaSalle—Émard had never said that Canadians would be surprised to see the Bloc Quebecois being funded with taxpayers' money.

Before putting my question to my colleague for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, I wish to point out to that hon. member that Quebeckers, who elected the Bloc Quebecois members, also pay federal taxes. Therefore, they have a fundamental right to be represented, if it is their wish, by Bloc Quebecois members, and the latter should enjoy the same benefits as the members of the other parties.

I want to ask my colleague whether it is true that the member for LaSalle—Émard made such comments.